Towards Orthodox-Catholic Reconciliation

Rethinking Eucharistic Discipline

Dr Adam deVille, at his blog Eastern Christian Books, raises the question of rethinking Eucharistic discipline between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, from the perspectives of two Orthodox authors: historian Antoine Arjakovsky, and philosopher/theologian David Bentley Hart.

As I said in my review in Logos (vol. 49 [2008]), Arjakovsky is someone who knows how to be at once faithfully Orthodox and fully ecumenical, not a common combination today, alas. In his essay “On Eucharistic Hospitality” [in Church, Culture, and Identity: Reflections on Orthodoxy in the Modern World (UCU Press, 2007), 231pp.], Arjakovsky proposes that the ban on eucharistic hospitality between Catholics and Orthodox be re-examined and changed where possible. I confess that prior to reading this essay, I was in favor of maintaining the traditional position, but after reading and considering the Arjakovsky’s arguments, I have changed my mind and can now see why eucharistic sharing between Catholics and Orthodox would be beneficial and could very well be justified. Arjakovsky is aware that some, perhaps most, of his fellow Orthodox will not agree with him, but he does cite as support the considered thought of such important figures as Olivier Clément and the Armenian Catholicos Aram of Cilicia, who in 1993 argued in favor of eucharistic sharing.

Perhaps the strongest argument Arjakovsky advances for revising the traditional ban on eucharistic sharing among Catholics and Orthodox is that first put forward by Nikos Nissiotis in 1968. To the usual argument that one cannot share the Eucharist because one is not fully united on each and every detail of each and every doctrine, Nissiotis retorted that such an argument is historically unsupportable (divisions in the early Church did not prevent eucharistic sharing in most instances) and, moreover, is currently belied by the fact that certain Orthodox Churches, who do enjoy a unity of faith on doctrinal questions, nonetheless do not practice eucharistic hospitality among themselves. Michael Plekon in his preface to this volume, and Arjakovsky in his antepenultimate essay “Porto Alegre’s Redefinition of Ecumenism and the Transformation of Orthodoxy,” both note that at a recent WCC gathering in Porto Alegere, the Orthodox were unable to come together to concelebrate the Eucharist, instead having two separate liturgies of the Moscow and Ecumenical patriarchs. How can these Churches turn around and maintain that doctrinal agreements are the sine qua non for eucharistic hospitality when plainly they are not among the Orthodox themselves, whose lack of eucharistic sharing must be explained by other reasons?

Nissiotis additionally notes that such an argument flies in the face of very traditional eucharistic theology and spirituality, which holds that the Eucharist is the medicine of immortality, the means of the healing of body and soul, the gift of the Divine Physician who binds all wounds and makes all whole. The Eucharist, according to Nissiotis, is not merely the fruit of unity but “also the God-given means of maintaining unity and of healing divisions if this unity is at stake or if the appropriate conditions for restoring it exist.” If that is the case, how much sense does it make to deny this most vital of all medicines to the most evangelically destructive of all diseases, viz., Christian disunity?

Such questions acquire even greater force when one considers the arguments of another Orthodox theologian, David Bentley Hart. In his “The Myth of Schism,” Hart asks pointedly: “not how we can possibly discover the doctrinal and theological resources that would enable or justify reunion, but howe we can possibly discover the doctrinal and theological resources that could justify or indeed make certain our division. This is not a moral question–how do we dare remain disunited?–but purely a canonical one: are we sure that we are? For, if not, then our division is simply sin, a habit of desire and thought that feeds upon nothing but its own perverse passions and immanent logic, a fiction of the will, and obedience to a lie.” Hart’s essay is in Francesca Aran Murphy and Christopher Asprey, eds., Ecumenism Today: the Universal Church in the 21st Century (Ashgate, 2008), viii+222pp.

Hart argues that the so-called East-West Schism no longer exists, if it ever did. Hence he can ask: are we really sure that we are really and truly divided? He’s not being flippant, either, but notes the serious canonical questions in support of his position: first, it was a “local” issue insofar as it was 2 hierarchs (Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch Cerulerius) excommunicating each other, not formally confecting a division between two churches. Second, there is extensive evidence of communicatio in sacris down through the ages, including into the 20th century. Third, the mutual liftings, in 1965, of the excommunications by the pope of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch should have resolved any lingering question. In the end, then, Catholics and Orthodox are (to use a Freudian heuristic) divided on a manifest level, but not at a latent level. And if that is so–and I think it is–then there is nothing to stop each from sharing the Eucharist with the other. One of the reasons Florence failed was that it did not have the people onside. Perhaps it is time for the people to push the hierarchs towards finally healing this division, and to do so by simply disregarding any sacramental-eucharistic distinction between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and instead receiving the sacraments in both. This is what I would call the Lev Gillet solution, and I think Orthodox and Catholics who are serious about unity should start availing themselves of this whenever and wherever possible. In a rebarbative world we can no longer afford the luxury of division.

87 Responses

Wow. This is a really bad essay with a lot of bad history, omissions and mis-characterizations. First of all anyone who thinks that doctrine alone is the “sine qua non” for sacramental communion has never read the Apostolic Canons. Instances communio in sacris have certainly occurred over the ages. And still do. But they are mostly aberrations and are inconsistent with the immemorial discipline of the Church and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers. How can anyone who claims to be Orthodox seriously suggest there are no grave doctrinal differences between Rome and the Orthodox Church? Has every Orthodox saint who bothered to comment on the Western church over the last five centuries or so been wrong in stating that Rome is heretical? The schism undoubtedly started as a local one. But it is NOT local now and has not been since the Synod of Jerusalem (1583).

I am not going to get into the doctrinal issues which have been beaten to death here and elsewhere. But anyone who truly believes there are no major differences between us really needs to join the Roman Catholic Church. Failing to do so IMHO is dishonest.

This is the sort of radical kumbaya foolishness that feeds the fires of the Old Calendarist schism.

I have my own serious problems with Arjakovsky and Hart that I hope to get into in a separate comment, but what exactly are you trying to argue? That Catholics became heretics 500 years ago? That the determination of Orthodox saints subsequent to 1510 is infallible concerning both the substance and orthodoxy of Catholic beliefs, but that of some of their predecessors prior to 1510 is not? That the Apostolic Canons set something other than doctrine as a “sine qua non” for sacramental communion, and that this something mysteriously came into force only in 1510? That Orthodox are morally obliged to leave their own communion if they somehow perceive an essentially similar faith in another?

MichaëlThat Catholics became heretics 500 years ago?
No. That is simply when a formal determination was made. Catholics like juridical statements. You should appreciate this. Different people date the schism differently. Most historians have become hung up on 1054 which I do agree with the author is a flawed approach. Others (including notably Dr. Tighe) date the schism to the formal repudiation of Roman Catholicism in 1583. I tend to fall in between. From a legal and canonical POV 1583 is probably THE date. But I think that the events of 1204 and the subsequent Latin military and religious occupation of the imperial capital probably made reconciliation all but impossible on a purely emotional basis for most Eastern Christians. All of that said 1583 is a good date if you are looking for some definitive declaration.

That the determination of Orthodox saints subsequent to 1510 is infallible concerning both the substance and orthodoxy of Catholic beliefs, but that of some of their predecessors prior to 1510 is not?

Clarity clearly arrived with the passage of time, better information and one must also note the ongoing doctrinal developments in the Western church during this same period. As for infallibility, I would have to give a qualified “Yes” to that. There is no magic number in terms of years. But most Orthodox would in fact ascribe a view held unanimously by the saints over a period of many centuries as carrying the weight of infallibility or something very close to it.

That the Apostolic Canons set something other than doctrine as a “sine qua non” for sacramental communion, and that this something mysteriously came into force only in 1510?

Really, that sentence is beneath someone of your well established erudition. The Apostolic Canons establish a variety of disciplinary canons for which severing communion is provided as a sanction.

That Orthodox are morally obliged to leave their own communion if they somehow perceive an essentially similar faith in another?

Yes. Any “Orthodox” who does not regard the decrees of the First Vatican Council as a grave doctrinal heresy is probably in a very serious state of sin by remaining outside the Roman Catholic Church. As I am sure any Catholic would agree, if one comes to the realization that the Roman claims are true, then to refuse communion with, and submission to, the Holy See would be a most grave sin. To remain in a church that one must logically conclude is at least willfully schismatic (and really heretical given our ejections of Vat. I and the Filioque) would be hypocritical to say the least. From an Orthodox perspective it would be sacrilegious to commune the Mysteries if one embraces the faith of the Roman Church.

“No. That is simply when a formal determination was made. Catholics like juridical statements. You should appreciate this. Different people date the schism differently. Most historians have become hung up on 1054 which I do agree with the author is a flawed approach. Others (including notably Dr. Tighe) date the schism to the formal repudiation of Roman Catholicism in 1583. I tend to fall in between. From a legal and canonical POV 1583 is probably THE date.”

You will have to enlighten me here: what was this formal determination in 1583, who made it, on what authority, and what form did this determination take?

“Clarity clearly arrived with the passage of time, better information and one must also note the ongoing doctrinal developments in the Western church during this same period. As for infallibility, I would have to give a qualified “Yes” to that. There is no magic number in terms of years. But most Orthodox would in fact ascribe a view held unanimously by the saints over a period of many centuries as carrying the weight of infallibility or something very close to it.”

Well, that is indeed remarkable. Would it surprise you to learn that from the Catholic perspective no one, no bishop, no saint, no pope, no council can determine with anything approaching moral certainty that someone is a heretic? The Church can ascertain infallibly that a belief or teaching is heresy, but surely the ascription of such a belief to an individual or teaching is a matter subject to factual determination on a case by case basis, not a matter of revelation vouchsafed by the Holy Spirit.

So far as I had previously been able to determine, Orthodoxy has never formally anathemized a teaching on doctrinal grounds that Catholics actually hold. Please understand me clearly. I am not stating that all Catholic teaching conforms to that found in Orthodoxy, merely that the points of actual (as opposed to imputed) difference have never (to my knowledge) been formally defined as heresy by any Orthodoxy body or institution authorized to make such a determination on behalf of all Orthodox (let alone the whole Church). Perhaps your answer re 1583 will point to something I have missed.

” The Apostolic Canons establish a variety of disciplinary canons for which severing communion is provided as a sanction.”

Of course, but do the Apostolic Canons make these sine qua non?

“Yes. Any “Orthodox” who does not regard the decrees of the First Vatican Council as a grave doctrinal heresy is probably in a very serious state of sin by remaining outside the Roman Catholic Church.”

Or perhaps, he merely has a more accurate understanding of these decrees than that peddled by Orthodox polemicists. I can see legitimate grounds for Orthodoxy finding the canons of Vatican I unconvincing or even false without necessarily being heretical.

“As I am sure any Catholic would agree, if one comes to the realization that the Roman claims are true, then to refuse communion with, and submission to, the Holy See would be a most grave sin.”

My suspicion is that you have an over-expansive understanding of what Catholic truth claims involve. One can be in communion with Rome in spirit without demonstrably being so de facto.

“To remain in a church that one must logically conclude is at least willfully schismatic…”

It’s not necessarily that simple. As a Catholic, one recognizes the validity (grace, if you will) of Orthodox sacraments. So a Catholic-minded “Orthodox” could still commune there if necessary and hope that Orthodoxy will in time awaken from its invincible ignorance. This might seem morally repugnant to most Orthodox, but the issue we are arguing isn’t whether someone who denies Roman claims should change communions.

“(and really heretical given our ejections of Vat. I and the Filioque) would be hypocritical to say the least.”

One isn’t a heretic for denying the filioque, merely mistaken. This tendency to raise every point of difference to the level of “heresy” is alien to Catholicism. Denying the filioque will not affect your salvation. Anathematizing it, on the other hand, could depending on the circumstances, but not in any that would involve most Orthodox.

“From an Orthodox perspective it would be sacrilegious to commune the Mysteries if one embraces the faith of the Roman Church.

“Best to be honest about these things.”

It’s not dishonesty I am concerned about.

I will be quite frank. I have never met a single lay Orthodox on the Internet who has ever convinced me that he (or she) had an accurate understanding of Catholic teaching. Instead, I invariably encounter a cloud of myth and at best polemic exegesis form selective Catholic texts presented as authoritative Catholic teaching.

It’s not that actual Catholic teaching is that hard to find, learn or understand (though, to be fair, many Catholics seem incapable of making the effort). It’s that most Orthodox can’t see beyond their acquired “truths” relating to what they think are Catholic beliefs, and inherited over centuries of mutual polemics and prejudice.

When I try to politely (or sometimes, not so politely) correct them on what the Church actually teaches, (quoting from, for example, the CCC or from elucidations found in the minutes of debate at Vatican I) I am met with disbelief or accusations of naivety. It’s like arguing Scripture with Evangelicals, but with my opponent claiming to understand explicitly Catholic texts better than Catholics are taught to.

What I am putting to you is that Catholicism allows for a range of understandings. I can see that extreme ultramontaneism would be difficult for Orthodoxy to swallow, but there are entirely legitimate understandings of Papal primacy even as defined and articulated in Pastor Aeternus that an Orthodox could perhaps accept in principle on expedient, if not revelatory, grounds.

That we may have inaccurate understandings of each other is an axiom that underpins the whole ecumenical project. Intellectual honesty requires that this possibility be explored fully and rigorously prior to any definitive determination of heresy in the other.

I am one of those Orthodox Christians who continues to remain with the Holy Orthodox Church despite thinking that there are no major differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. The so-called differences are based on caricatures, on reactionary anti-western polemics. I have been looking at specific caricatures and I agree with the Orthodox-Catholic Ecumenical commission, the main thing that separates us is the matter of Church organization. And there was never any one way of governing the Church in the past, so we really should not expect any kind of artificial uniformity now. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church has been emphasizing the collegial aspects of her ecclesiology for decades.

As for the standard caricatures, (1) the Filioque has been settled, the Catholic Church does not affirm the Filioque in the Greek language because they admit that in the Greek language the phrase expresses a heretical doctrine, and they can quote Eastern Orthodox Fathers and Theologians that support whatever it is that the Latin phrase is supposed to mean. But either way they support the doctrine that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone so that the Father aught to be understood as the sole principle of origin of both the Divine Son and Holy Spirit. (2) According to the Roman Catholic Church original sin is not inherited guilt, is not a “personal fault” in any one but Adam. (3) Created Grace, Roman Catholic theologians speak of created grace! (4) Orthodoxy allows contraception. Well no they don’t. Nothing in our tradition condones the use of contraception and the Orthodox hierarch all wrote that they accepted the teaching of Humane Vitae. One even said that God spoke through the pope! It is certain Orthodox Christians who have accepted “doctrinal development” on this issue.

I could go on and on and have documented a lot of this with quotes and references.

How do I justify staying in the Orthodox Church. First, for better or worse, the Orthodox Church is my Church. I would need serious reason for changing.

Second, When my priest asks me in Confession if I doubt any doctrines of Orthodox Church I can honestly say that I do not. When examining what the Orthodox Church teaches, especially in positive non-polemic writings, I accept it as the Revelation of God to man by supernatural faith. If I encounter a caricature of the Roman Catholic position ( an accusation that RC believe X when RC obviously do not believe X ) in the writings of Orthodox theologians I accept that they were misinformed. I don’t get all hung up about that. Furthermore, I can source authoritative canonical statements of the Orthodox Churches formally declaring that “Transubstantiation,” for example, is a doctrine of the Orthodox Church, so I know that not everything so-and-so anti-western polemicists says I have to believe or not believe is necessarily Apostolic.

Third, the entirety of Orthodox theology is totally encompassed within the Roman Catholic Church so that if I converted I would be leaving nothing behind. To be clear, if I converted and you asked me, “do you believe Y?” and Y was anything that was genuinely Orthodox, say any positive teaching in St John of Damascus’ “Exact Exposition” or “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” or Lossky’s “Mystical Theology of the Orthodox Church,” I would whole heartedly say “Yes!” Fourth, since from the Roman Catholic point of view, the Eastern Orthodox Churches have salvific sacraments, I need not convert.

Lastly, I do not convert because the Roman Catholic Church is currently in a state of liturgical chaos, with sacrilegious protestantized masses, and tolerates cults such as the charismatic movement and the Neocatecuminal Way within her ranks. These, and not the doctrinal caricatures, present the real impediment to unity today, in my opinion.

But one thing that I miss, not being a Roman Catholic, is the opportunity to daily partake of the Holy and Divine Mysteries of Christ for the sanctification of my soul and body, for a more effectual growth in grace, holiness, and communion with the Holy Spirit.

There are a range of sad divisions present in our churches. I remembering receiving with great joy the news that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) churches had reached a point of understanding that permitted co-celebration of the Eucharist with the Moscow Patriarchiate, a schism that traces back at least 70 years. We pray that the schisms (plural) cease.

We must always work to have dialog proceed in a way that extends love and charity. Incidentally, I did some research into the RCIA process for people embracing the Roman Catholic articulation of faith and found some disturbing discrepancies for how a non-Christian becomes Roman Catholic and how an Orthodox Christian would become a Roman Catholic. Interestingly, from what I can see, the baptismal Creed of the Roman Catholic Church is the Apostle’s Creed, not the Nicene Creed. This choice of baptismal creed removes the filioque from the table entirely. Now I could be certainly wrong in my analysis of the various paths to becoming Roman Catholic, but I consider the article that postulates the ready reception of joint communions to be significantly out of touch with Orthodox concerns.

I really seem to be living on a different planet than most people today. :-(

“Incidentally, I did some research into the RCIA process for people embracing the Roman Catholic articulation of faith and found some disturbing discrepancies for how a non-Christian becomes Roman Catholic and how an Orthodox Christian would become a Roman Catholic.”

Non-Christians are baptized, Orthodox make a profession of faith. How is this disturbing (at least to an Orthodox observer)?

“Interestingly, from what I can see, the baptismal Creed of the Roman Catholic Church is the Apostle’s Creed, not the Nicene Creed.”

And your point is… that all Christian baptisms before 381 were somehow without effect? I’m not following you here.

Orthodox Christians are required to conform to the declarations of the Council of Trent, which include accepting the filioque and the universal jurisdiction of the Pope.

The baptismal creed is the catechical creed. I recently had a non-Christian friend who was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church. His confession of faith was exclusively the Apostle’s Creed. My “confession of faith” coming from an Orthodox Christian background is “the declarations of the Council of Trent.” It’s disturbing because “the Apostle’s Creed” is not “the declarations of the Council of Trent.”

If the Apostle’s Creed is in point of fact the baptismal creed of the Roman Catholic Church, then why the insistence on the filioque in the Nicene Creed and the regular use of the Nicene Creed during Mass?

The CCC has over 700 pages in English and 2865 articles. Catholics, whether previously pagan or Orthodox are expected to subscribe to all of it (including the teachings of Trent). Do you seriously expect us to recite the whole of Catholic teaching at each baptism?

By your reasoning the Apostles Creed should never be used at all in any circumstances, no matter how traditional.

“If the Apostle’s Creed is in point of fact the baptismal creed of the Roman Catholic Church, then why the insistence on the filioque in the Nicene Creed and the regular use of the Nicene Creed during Mass?”

The Apostle’s Creed is “a,” not “the,” doctrinal standard. Catholics also use the Athanasian Creed in some circumstances. This is not intended to deny the validity of the other two.

Cough, cough, umm, I can’t recall what happened in 1583 — but 1484 was when the four Eastern patriarchs met and formally repudiated the Council of Florence and its union of 1439. Additionally, they decreed that Latins seeking to enter the communion of Orthodoxy would have to make a statement repudiating “Latin errors” and then be chrismated. It seems as good a (symbolic) date as any for an apprehension on the part of the Orthodox that they and the Latins were separate communion-fellowships, which is as much as to say, churches (and that despite the fact that the Metropolitanate of Kiev seems to have regarded itself as being in communion with both Rome and Constantinople down to ca. 1500/1503).

It seems to me that some of the comments preceding this one fully illustrate the observation by D.B. Hart as quoted in the above essay;

“not how we can possibly discover the doctrinal and theological resources that would enable or justify reunion, but howe we can possibly discover the doctrinal and theological resources that could justify or indeed make certain our division. This is not a moral question–how do we dare remain disunited?–but purely a canonical one: are we sure that we are? For, if not, then our division is simply sin, a habit of desire and thought that feeds upon nothing but its own perverse passions and immanent logic, a fiction of the will, and obedience to a lie.”

It seems to me that there are far too many people wishing the divisions to remain permanent, unless, of course the “opponent” magically transforms into another entity identical to one’s own.

Forgive my remarks. I am very interested in restoring the communion between the East and the West. However, I think far too many people have embraced a theological relativism that permits each individual to have their own theology that “works for them.” This relativism makes it very difficult to have “one mind” of the Church, headed by Christ. The questions of authority and conciliarity in the Church are real, and I cannot in good conscience confess union with the papacy by partaking of a Roman Catholic Eucharist. I do not believe that the Bishop of Rome has the same status as say the Bishop of Pittsburgh related to historic honor, but I am unwilling to extend the question of honor towards universal jurisdiction. I pray with fervency that the East sees the faithfulness of the West and the West sees the faithfulness of the East. I do not see the West as an “opponent.” Yet I remained intrigued by the presence of certain dogmatic teachings and entreat the Holy Spirit to illumine the right beliefs that are present. Even Pope John Paul II identified that things went a little off regarding papal authority.

The Orthodox Church is made of people that must repent. The Roman Catholic Church is made of people that must repent. I think rushing to the Eucharist table with false conceptions of the understood meaning of this action together does more harm than good to the cause of unity.

I am an Orthodox Christian who seeks a blessing from the celebrant during the Eucharistic distribution at every Roman Catholic Mass I have ever attended or will attend. I will also always remember my non-Orthodox friends by offering them the antidoron as a gesture of hospitality when they attend Orthodox liturgy with me. To fail to respect the conscience of both communions would dismember me from both.

“I think far too many people have embraced a theological relativism that permits each individual to have their own theology that “works for them.” This relativism makes it very difficult to have “one mind” of the Church, headed by Christ.”

Catholics believe what they believe. Honest ecumenists are not looking to convert the other side or reach some kind of agreed lowest common denominator. They seek instead to see the other side as it sees itself, to share with the other their own understanding of their own faith, and to explore whether the essential doctrinal content of each can be found in the other.

“The questions of authority and conciliarity in the Church are real, and I cannot in good conscience confess union with the papacy by partaking of a Roman Catholic Eucharist. I do not believe that the Bishop of Rome has the same status as say the Bishop of Pittsburgh related to historic honor, but I am unwilling to extend the question of honor towards universal jurisdiction.”

Where do you get the impression that the Bishop of Rome status rests on “historic honor”? Is this an expression used by any Church Father in relation to Rome? What was “historic” about the honour Clement enjoyed in the first century? If we were to accept the concept of “historic honor,” as you put it, what would this involve in practical terms? Have you read the canons of the Council of Sardica to which all the orthodox bishops of the East subscribed at least in principle until the end of the 10th century? What do YOU mean by “universal jurisdiction,” and how do you know that it the same as what Catholics mean by the term?

What this conversation and topic underscore is a clear difference between East and West, namely that the West relies more – if not primarily – on non-liturgical formulations for faith than does the East. Has the East ever produced anything akin to a seven hundred page document to which all must give assent to every iota? Does the East put anything on the same level, to say nothing above, its liturgical life?
My point is, if you want to know what the East believes, one only need spend time praying with the Church, for the rule of prayer informs the rule of faith. Can the same be said of the West? For example, a lot of fuss is made about the Pope in modern Western Councils, but where liturgically do Catholics pray what they are supposed to believe as per these councils? To Easterners, it is tough to tell via communal prayer just exactly what Catholics do believe. You wouldn’t know just how important the Pope is in extra-liturgical proclamations, etc. There just is not a high correlation, which leads Orthodox to ask, “Why is the issue of the Pope so important anyway to Catholics? Where is that belief expressed liturgically?”

This low correlation between the rule of prayer and the rule of faith in the West strikes this Orthodox as not without purpose; if the rule of faith is not intelligible to the comman man via the rule of prayer, then it requires a greater reliance on a cadre of consultants, on middlemen, to bridge the gap. Over time, the interpretation becomes less important than who is doing the interpreting at that moment in time, and so things can change in their relative validity/importance with the passage of time. Which Orthodox more or less understand to be the Western notion of development of doctrine.

Before you go too far down this path, you might consider the inconsistency with which Orthodoxy treats liturgically the reconciliation of fellow Christians, and the confused ecclesiology liturgically manifest in asymmetrical communion between “Orthodox” Churches professing the same faith. To say that what the East believes is manifest in its prayer life, whereas what the West believes is not, is yet another typical polemic exaggeration.

But to answer a few of your questions:

“For example, a lot of fuss is made about the Pope in modern Western Councils, but where liturgically do Catholics pray what they are supposed to believe as per these councils?”

Well, they don’t in any great detail, but I believe all Catholics worldwide in every rite include the Pope explicitly in the blessing invoked for their bishop (and patriarch). This prayerfully demonstrates belief in an unmediated (i.e. immediate) responsibility of the Pontiff on their behalf. Papal encyclicals are also read to the congregation as appropriate. I could also mention the periodic reading of the Petrine texts during the mass.

But most telling, is your following question:

“Why is the issue of the Pope so important anyway to Catholics? Where is that belief expressed liturgically?”

To which I would reply with another question: What makes you think that that the issue of the Pope is THAT important to Catholics? This reverse question may stun you, but it is the Orthodox who are Pope-obsessed (in a negative sense) and who make a big thing over Catholic beliefs on the issue.

As an Orthodox, deny all the papal claims you wish, and you are still admitted, should you choose to seek it, to Catholic communion. Deny all the papal claims you wish, and your orders and sacraments are still considered valid. Does this not liturgically demonstrate to you that Catholics, at least, do not consider the issues separating them from the Orthodox that essential?

As to your Orthodox understanding “of the Western notion of development of doctrine,” I can only suggest that it inform itself from Catholic sources rather than from Orthodox polemics. For a source in English, you might start by reading the Blessed John Henry Newman on the matter.

“Why is the issue of the Pope so important anyway to Catholics? Where is that belief expressed liturgically?”

Well, have you done a survey of Latin liturgical texts (for both the Mass and the Divine Office, pre- and post-Vatican II) for Feasts involving the Apostle Peter – Ss. Peter & Paul (June 29), the Chair of Peter (Feb. 22), St Peter’s Chains (Aug. 1), etc. Or how about the Feasts of Popes?

How about what Eastern Catholics, both Byzantine and non-Byzantine, pray in their own hymnography with regard to Peter and the Petrine ministry at Rome?

Mr. Williams, I very much believe you have raised the most important point on the thread: I seem to remember something dating back to St. Ignatius (echoing Scripture) about obedience to the Bishop. Open rebellion of the sort that Hart advocates seems clear ground for excommunication.

Where exactly does Hart advocate that the Orthodox faithful rebel against their hierarchs? It’s been awhile since I read through “The Myth of Schism”, but as I recall, what Hart suggests is that there could be a re-evaluation of eucharistic discipline by the hierarchs of the Church (I assume he means the synod of a local autocephalous church, or even the entire Orthodox hierarchy assembled in a worldwide council).

Michael, I don’t mean to push us towards opposite sides of a spectrum and make everything a set of absolutes (the east does this all the time, the west never does, or vice versa), so if I have conveyed that my apologies. What I seek to communicate are my observations on a RELATIVE basis, along the lines of “the east is MORE this way, the west is MORE that”, as such language strives to be accurate and to allow for the discovery of underlying trends and causes.

Hence, do you agree that there are MORE extra-liturgical requirements of faith and a GREATER reliance on extra-liturgical ways to communicate common faith among Catholics than Orthodox? This is a question that strives to determine simply what is, what exists now, and if yes, how long has it been so, and what contributed to this being so. Yes, at the end of every day, we must make our own value judgements; but I would prefer to keep those more private and discuss more publicly what is, how it came to be, to what degree we all see it that way. Then we are better able to discuss “Is it important?”, and “Is A more important than B?” Then we can look at “Is it True?” or better – and here I mean safer, more humble, the Church’s approach – “Is it definitely Not True” – anathema, or “Unworthy”, anaxios.

So yes, on a relative basis, I do believe that, on a blog and topic dedicated towards understanding differences in a quest for unity, Catholic beliefs surrounding the Papacy and how they are communicated to be of MUCH greater importance than Orthodox diversity in things like the reconciliation of other Christians as you frame it. Do you agree?

“Hence, do you agree that there are MORE extra-liturgical requirements of faith and a GREATER reliance on extra-liturgical ways to communicate common faith among Catholics than Orthodox?”

I honestly can’t say. I don’t mean to avoid your question, but I just don’t know Orthodoxy well enough to be able to confidently make this sort of comparison.

I will acknowledge that considerable Catholic effort since the schism, and most especially since the Reformation, has gone into addressing definitively a number of issues on which Orthodox are not necessarily troubled. But this has been primarily with a view to resolving schisms, or to combat the doctrinal innovations of Protestantism.

In almost all cases that I can determine, such Catholic definitions (other than with respect to the Papal claims and the procession of the Holy Spirit) conform to Orthodox beliefs Orthodoxy have not seen fit to dogmatise. I would aver that this is simply because Orthodoxy, unlike Catholicism, has not been compellingly challenged on these points.

“So yes, on a relative basis, I do believe that, on a blog and topic dedicated towards understanding differences in a quest for unity, Catholic beliefs surrounding the Papacy and how they are communicated to be of MUCH greater importance than Orthodox diversity in things like the reconciliation of other Christians as you frame it. Do you agree?”

That’s an entirely different question than what you were posing before. The Catholic view of the Papacy is, of course, an important, even essential, question to address IN RESOLVING THE SCHISM. It doesn’t follow, however, that it is the underlying master-tenet of Catholic belief that some Orthodox polemicists portray it as.

Unitatis Redintegratio (Vatican II) explicitly refers to a “hierarchy of truths.” Within this hierarchy the Papal claims are demonstrably of a second order. If you believe everything else the Church teaches, then you won’t be disagreeing with the Papacy, and so belief in the truth of the Papal claims would become a moot point. The same would be true with respect to belief in the infallibility of the Church. You can’t, on the other hand, make that sort of argument for belief in the Trinity, for example. If you don’t believe in the Trinity, you are not an orthodox Christian (and arguably not a Christian of any kind).

“Has the East ever produced anything akin to a seven hundred page document to which all must give assent to every iota? Does the East put anything on the same level, to say nothing above, its liturgical life?”

Some Orthodox refer to the Fathers of the Church, everyone of them, as defining faith, even when they contradict each other .

Others refer to the Philokalia as determining faith.

Some argue that the pronouncements of saints on a number of topics from the elevated to the mundane are “infallible” since saints, by definition, are inspired, at every moment it seems, by the Holy Spirit and therefore cannot err.

I’m exaggerating, of course, but there are Orthodox who do understand the faith in this way.

Another point, Stephen: Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that your argument rests on an assumption that Orthodox Liturgy is a static, unchanging reality, like a credal statement. In fact, it’s nothing of the sort.

Let us not pretend that the Orthodox Liturgy itself has not developed (in fact, it’s undergone a good deal of development, for good or ill, since the middle of the 20th century). Likewise, let’s not pretend that, at times, the Orthodox Church has not found it necessary to make additions to the Liturgy so that it better reflects dogmatic developments (e.g. the Sunday of Orthodoxy, or the Sunday of St Gregory Palamas), thus reversing “Lex orandi, lex credendi” (the reversal of the maxim can be extremely dangerous, but sometimes it’s necessary).

Not to open up a whole new can of worms, but the Russian and Antiochian Churches have had no compunction whatsoever about completely reversing this maxim with regard to their approved forms of the Western Rite, to the point of disfiguring the ancient and venerable Roman Canon with the hamhanded interpolation of the epiclesis of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, and censoring ancient (and entirely patristic) references to Saints’ merits in certain prayers.

Michael, thank for this direction to Unitatis Redintegratio. I will study it to understand the relative position of the Papacy in the Catholic hierarchy of truths. Of particular importance to me would be to gain a clear understanding of Catholic understanding of universal jurisdiction, both what it says and how it is exercised. For example, as I read the current Pope’s recent proclamation regarding the use of an older version of the Latin rite, a priest has the right to say the Extraordinary Form, as it is therein called, of the Mass without the blessing of his ordinary, to whom I believe he swears his allegiance. If this is true, it would seem to me to undermine subsidiarity and the role of the ordinary in relation to his priests, and buttress the direct supervision of the priest by the Bishop of Rome, aka universal jurisdiction. But does a priest in the Latin rite swear obedience to just his ordinary, as in the East? Or is there some formal fealty to the Pope that is equal to or supercedes that to the ordinary?

We in the East also pray for our hierarchy during the Liturgies, but this does not necessarily mean that one can trump the other, or that we have somehow implicitly elevated their administrative relationships to the level of dogma. Naturally, it is a push-me, pull-u dynamic over time, depending on personalities and agendas of those in a particular office, full of wheat and chaff I can assure you. But we do not elevate the time-bound happenstance of Church structure (diocese was an administrative region of the pagan Roman empire for example) to a timeless part of the deposit of Faith, which is – for your edification – how many Orthodox understand the development of Papal doctrine.

Speaking of doctrinal development, I have read all of Newman, and have to say I am completely underwhelmed at the end of the day with him. In the heat of the furance, the crux of issue of the day, in his “Letters to Gladstone” all he can muster in defense of his support of the Papal claims of Vatican I is a wimpy, passive articulation of “it must be so because logically God would not have let it be otherwise.” Pretty thin gruel if you ask me.

I know he’s all the rage at the moment, but Newman’s is hardly a ringing endorsement.

I am speaking only for myself here, as I know some Catholics might take issue with me on this, but I don’t interpret references to the Pope’s “universal jurisdiction” as being essentially doctrinal in nature. Rather I see it as a canonical norm, in other words, a definition of Church law.

I have made this argument here before, but I will lay it out again. Looked at strictly in terms of its limited doctrinal content, universal jurisdiction should not be a problem for Orthodox, in my view. I say this because, if you think about it carefully, all bishops in theory have universal jurisdiction, just as the apostles did. Their sacramental acts are universally valid/grace-filled, wherever they are performed, even if canonically improper.

What occurred historically is that, for the good order of the Church and so that each flock might know and respect its principal shepherd, customary norms were established inhibiting bishops from performing sacramental acts outside their assigned diocese without the authorization of the resident ordinary. Jurisdiction is thus legally, and not doctrinally, constrained.

Part of the Catholic position is that, in conformity with his Petrine function, the Pope’s universal jurisdiction has never been so constrained, and that he is thus free to perform sacramental acts anywhere, at any time, legally requiring no one’s authorization before doing so. This is why I claim this is more a legal than a doctrinal issue.

One could envisage circumstances in which the Pope might be so inhibited but, realistically, this could only seriously impair his ability to address abuses and arbitrate disputes in the face of a defiant bishop. His universal jurisdiction permits him to offer succor either directly, or through delegation, to those wishing to remain in the bosom of the universal Church, but who would otherwise be prevented from doing so through the resistance of a guilty or even heretical bishop.

Even Orthodoxy has this kind of universal jurisdiction, though obviously it does not vest it in a universal primate. I offer as an example the extraordinary recent deposition of the former Patriarch of Jerusalem by the concerted action of his fellow primates. What is this if not an exercise in universal jurisdiction, albeit exercised by several bishops collectively, rather than one. What otherwise is the canonical basis for their intervening beyond the boundaries of their respective Churches?

“For example, as I read the current Pope’s recent proclamation regarding the use of an older version of the Latin rite, a priest has the right to say the Extraordinary Form, as it is therein called, of the Mass without the blessing of his ordinary, to whom I believe he swears his allegiance. If this is true, it would seem to me to undermine subsidiarity and the role of the ordinary in relation to his priests, and buttress the direct supervision of the priest by the Bishop of Rome, aka universal jurisdiction. But does a priest in the Latin rite swear obedience to just his ordinary, as in the East? Or is there some formal fealty to the Pope that is equal to or supercedes that to the ordinary?”

This is clearly a matter of canon law, and not a doctrinal issue, and has to do with the way the Western Church (or patriarchate, if you wish) is structured. Amongst the Latin bishops, the bishop of Rome is recognized as supreme legislator and judge. This was a conscious choice made by the Latin bishops over the centuries in order to protect themselves from the abusive exercise of control over the Church by the secular arm, and is the product of the Western historical experience. It might not be part of the historical experience of Eastern Orthodoxy, but you will find the Patriarch of Alexandria exercising similar authority within his patriarchate up to and even beyond Chalcedon. Coptic Oriental Orthodox patriarchs of Alexandria exercised such jurisdiction down to the 19th century.

With respect to the Eastern Catholic rites the situation is a bit different. The Pope exercises a similar (but not identical) legislative authority either provisionally or in loco patriarchi and, of course, still exercises the universal judicial authority vested in him by all the orthodox bishops in both East and West at Sardica.

As to whether a Latin priest swears obedience to his ordinary, I can’t say. Perhaps Fr. Paul could elucidate the matter. In any case, as supreme judge and legislator, the Pope does enjoy a superior claim on the loyalty of this hypothetical priest. Latin priests do have rights independently of their bishops, and are not merely their slaves. It is up to the Pope to draw the line between the respective rights of the priest and bishop, again because the Latin bishops have decided historically that this is the way they want it.

“Speaking of doctrinal development, I have read all of Newman, and have to say I am completely underwhelmed at the end of the day with him. In the heat of the furance, the crux of issue of the day, in his “Letters to Gladstone” all he can muster in defense of his support of the Papal claims of Vatican I is a wimpy, passive articulation of “it must be so because logically God would not have let it be otherwise.” Pretty thin gruel if you ask me.

“I know he’s all the rage at the moment, but Newman’s is hardly a ringing endorsement.”

I wasn’t offering Newman as an “endorsement” but as a descriptive Catholic source. I humbly suggest that you may have read him with a predetermined understanding of what “doctrinal development” involved, and as such have missed his explanation of the concept, focusing instead, apparently, on his defence of papal infallibility. Basically I don’t recognize the Catholic understanding of doctrinal development in your criticism.

I just wanted to quickly respond to your questions without having time to read the subsequent comments so please forgive any repetition. I am in substantial agreement with what Michaël wrote in response and I think he did an excellent job in explaining things.

As Michaël pointed out, the Pope has greater powers in regards to the Latin Rite then those restricted to his Universal Jurisdiction. The extending the right to all priests of the Latin Rite to use the “Extraordinary Form” stems from the Pope’s role as supreme legislator for the Latin Rite. Also, the extending of the right to use the Extraordinary Form is a matter of the privileges of the priest (Catholic priests have rights and privileges) and not a question of the authority of the local bishop. Since the Extraordinary Form is a form of the Latin Rite (and not a separate one); a priest of that rite cannot be restricted from using his own rite. If memory serves me, a diocesan priest promises obedience to his bishop.

From the outside it often appears that bishops get downplayed because of the Pope’s popularity. In my experience, however, the bishop is the most important person in the life of the local church. He sets the whole tone: if he’s wacky the diocese will be wacky, if he’s orthodox then the diocese will be orthodox. When the bishop comes to town it is a big deal. People make a special point to go to masses when the bishop presides, even outside their own parish. I remember with fondness the times where I have heard my bishop preach and shaken his hand. All the business I have with the Church is handled within the diocese. Any dispensations come from my bishop and not Rome. The bishop is the spiritual father of my diocese.

Just a little jibe so don’t get offended, but I think what Isidore of Seville said of Augustine could also be said of Newman – that anyone who claims to have read all of his works is a liar.

Irenaeus,
In what way to you does the Sunday of Orthodoxy, for example, constitute a development of doctrine? Much obliged. We celebrate on that feastday, as you doubtless know, the final victory of the Church over the iconoclasts. And is your understanding of doctrinal development the same as how Catholics understand it?

And, I cannot speak about the hamhandness to which you refer, but I like the phrase. I agree that to reverse the law of “as we pray, so we believe” aka “the rule of prayer is the rule of faith” would be fraught with danger. But perhaps this is an heretofore unexplored area of commonality between East and West, namely the notion that Primates do have the right, the authority and the ability to change the liturgy at will. Were St. Tikhon and Pope Pius X in this regard alike?

Certainly Popes since at least Pius X have made great – if not grave – changes to the Roman liturgy (which is funny when you see hyper-traditionalists in the West moan about Paul VI, when he was clearly following precedent of Pius X), and Pius XII in Mediator Dei made a point to formalize Papal ability to put the rule of faith before the rule of prayer, if I read it correctly.

Here again, we must ask, is this indeed the case? Is it important? Is it True or Not True? How do we know?

I would also submit that Pius XII, the grand architect of ultramontanism from the 1918 Code of Canon Law through the era of concordats and his papal pronouncements, never could have conceived that the power he concentrated in the Papacy over the course of his life would ever, ever be used to impose on the Church anything akin to the Mass of Paul VI and his other changes to the liturgy. I could be wrong of course, but methinks that that Roman forgot the caution of the Prince (or Sun Tsu I forget) regarding power, namely the maxim of beware how much power you accumulate and legitimatize, because it could be used against you in the hands of your enemy.

Then again, was not Montini the apprentice to Pacelli? Perhaps Montini was executing all that his mentor truly wanted.

Forgive me for butting in, but your question below appears to rest on the misunderstandings that all Churches are or must be structured identically and follow identical canon law and disciplines:

“But perhaps this is an heretofore unexplored area of commonality between East and West, namely the notion that Primates do have the right, the authority and the ability to change the liturgy at will. Were St. Tikhon and Pope Pius X in this regard alike?”

Yes, the Pope has such a right in the West, one that has been exercised repeatedly over the centuries. Whether Tikhon has such a right with respect to the Moscow Patriarchate is a matter to be taken up with its canon lawyers. These are issues of fact that need not rest on postulated similarities between the titulars.

The mere posing of the question in this way is both pejorative and offensive (albeit, surely not intended as such).

Correct me if I’m mistaken, but it sounded like you were arguing that the Orthodox must always derive their beliefs from the Liturgy. Unless it’s somehow enshrined in the Liturgy, it’s not a part of the Faith.

I’m a tad skeptical of this claim. I like the sound of it, but I just don’t know that many Orthodox people, including theologians, really think this way. Forgive me, but it sounds like a kind of “sola liturgia” parallel to the Protestant “sola scriptura.” Surely Sacred Tradition is a much wider reality, including all of Scripture (not just those portions read throughout the year at the Liturgy), the teachings of the Fathers and other theologians, the sacred canons, etc.

It seems to me that we hold certain things to be true which aren’t necessarily explicitly found in our prayers and hymns; and there are other things in our liturgical tradition which many Orthodox feel free to dismiss as mere pious opinions (e.g. the materials in our Marian hymnology derived from the Protoevangelium of St James).

And then of course there’s the fact that the Liturgy itself develops in response to doctrinal developments in the Church. Yes, I know some Orthodox, including yourself, have a hard time with this notion of “development”, and I don’t necessarily mean it in a Newmanian sense, but I don’t know what else to call, for instance, the well-refined iconodule theology of St John Damascene, of the extremely technical propositions of Gregory Palamas. The Fathers were forced to hammer these things out in a very abstract way; and only afterwards were these things enshrined in the Liturgy, as a way of protecting and popularizing these theological “developments.” This is why I brought up the examples of the Sunday of Orthodoxy, or the Sunday of St Gregory Palamas, as examples of the Church finding it necessary to develop its “lex orandi” in response to new dogmatic formulations in her “lex credendi.”

Now, while occasionally it is necessary and legitimate for the Church to alter her “lex orandi” to better fit her “lex credendi”, I share your deep skepticism of the rights of Prelates, even Popes and Patriarchs, to change the Liturgy at will. In fact, I think the attitude of the modern Popes regarding the reform of the Roman Liturgy has been nothing short of disasterous. (And, lest anyone thinks this is just Orthodox negativity Rome, I’d be happy to point out any number of RC theologians and liturgists, including the Pope himself, who have made similar assessments.) I interpret the current Pope’s liturgical programme as an attempt to jumpstart the process digging the Latin Church out of this hole, yet by gentle persuasion and example, with as little authoritarian interference as possible.

I think that this is one of the greatest strengths of Orthodoxy’s “messier” ecclesiology: no one authority could ever impose any sort of liturgical reform on the entire Orthodox world. Liturgical change used to be imperceptible and organic, even in the Latin West. I don’t know if it’s apocryphal or not, but even Pio Nono admitted that he, the Vicar of Christ, was powerless to add or subtract even one word in the Roman Canon.

This reverse question may stun you, but it is the Orthodox who are Pope-obsessed (in a negative sense) and who make a big thing over Catholic beliefs on the issue.

Oh man, that is soooo true. To hear our Orthodox brethren tell it, we Catholics are constantly looking to the Pope to tell us how to tie our shoes and blow our noses. In reality, we can go days without giving the pope a second thought, except in a passing prayer for his wellbeing. Our experience of the Church is very local: It’s our parish family, first, and then the bishop (assuming he’s coming to town to do Confirmation or whatever). We love the Holy Father, but he does not play a huge role in our daily lives by any stretch.

Beg to differ. I know that the RC Liturgy is a big controversy, especially in its English translation.
The recent “reform of the reform” of the Liturgy, with its rather questionable translation, ( both theologically and in terms of linguistic sense), is a case in point. The promulgation of this “reform” was rather heavy-handed, to say the least.
Originally, the Liturgy was the responsibility of the bishops. Now, it seems, that responsibility has been taken away.

You may or may not agree with what’s occuring. However, it seems clear to me that what should have occured, and didn’t, was a more nuanced, more inclusive, more collegial approach.

I do not think that this is an expression of any “doctrine” about the Pope, ( or more clearly, the Vatican) but is is an expression of how the Vatican still wishes its domination of all affairs, despite, despite the very clear pronouncements of Vatican II.

Given the Catholic genius for resolving such situations, I think this will clearly go in favor of Vatican II, eventually…but it will take a while.

Please read the article before commenting. It is quite an informative one and makes some good points, even if you disagree with them.

E. — the pope acts when he is driven to act. When you have clericalists like the old ICEL and Bishop Trautman imposing banal schlock on the laity, then the pope acts.

Doesn’t the voice of the laity count? We’ve been clamoring for more reverence for years now.

Episcopal tyranny can be much worse than papal tyranny. Our bishops wouldn’t listen. They patronized us — you should hear Bishop Trautman on the subject of the laity’s supposed stupidity and cluelessness!!! — and resisted us and called us troglodytes and throw-backs.

The pope listened to the people, the laos. I don’t consider that Overbearing Dishpot-ness at all.

BTW–I was merely agreeing with Michael. How come they always attack The Girl? ;)

The ICEL translations had its problems but nothing as bad as the one being imposed.

At any rate, it should not be imposed but be an ongoing discussion. English is a peculiar language that does not lend itself well to literal translations from Latin, ( neither does German). The people in the Vatican in charge of all this do not speak English with any facility.

I read Bishop Trautmann’s observation and, on the whole, agree with him. Understanding the Liturgy should not take a master’s degree in theology. It should be so structured that, like chess, “a gnat may drink his full and an elephant may bathe.”

Have you read the caustic scholarly critiques of the ICEL translation that have accumulated over the years? It sounds as if you have apprised yourself of only one side on this issue.

This is not a dispute between the Pope and the episcopate, as the episcopate supports the Pope in this. Troutmann does not an episcopal conference make.

There were serious problems with the ICEL translation, and the problems with the new one (translations are always problematic) are minor in comparison. The new translation also conforms better to English translations agreed for use outside the USA. While Troutmann isn’t arguing that the old ICEL should be kept, his request for changes back to some of the ICEL language just amounts to an attempt to kick this into the weeds.

By next year, the new translation will have been implemented, US parishes will have become used to it, and no one outside a tiny circle will even remember what the fuss was about.

Please keep in mind that the Roman liturgy is intended to be the same as that of the diocese of Rome. If the Holy See (which runs a number of English-language institutes of higher learning in Rome itself, and is hardly illiterate in English) isn’t happy with a particular translation of its own liturgy, it follows logically that the translation properly belongs in the dustbin.

It seems to me that the bishops’ version, following a very lengthy process, managed to keep both the terseness of the old ECL and the theological points overlooked in the old ECL.

Basically, I have no real axe here to grind, since I have been “Orthodox” for many years and happen to like the Chrysostom Liturgy, ( even though I think that the English translation could be a little better- but I’m not a scholar of the Greek used in that Liturgy and am loath to see any changes made not approved by bishops and the laity), but I do, on occasion attend RC liturgies and happen, ( you know the saying- once a Catholic…), to know it as well as the Chrysostom. I’m quite comfortable with the old ECL and think that it’s only real problem is its brevity… ( I think that Orthodox suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder, hence the three fold repetition :) and that Catholics would benefit from the same approach).

What I want to focus on is not the correctness of the translations etc; but the process of how the bishops’ version was completely rejected by the Vatican. This is the crux of the matter.

I don’t think the bishops were “wishy-washy liberals” wanting to “water-down” the Liturgy or make it more “relevant”. I do think they had, as central focus, the purpose of the Liturgy which is the celebration of the Eucharist, the Great Mystery that reveals God as both God and Man, that enables us, who participate in the Liturgy, to share in the holiness of God.

Somehow, the responsibility of the bishops for the Liturgy, as pronounced by Vatican II, ( based on the scholarship of those who investigated and made public the history of the role of bishops in promulgating the faith and creating, as it were, the Liturgy ), was removed.

It is this removal of responsibility, ( and the consequent promulgation of the new translation without the consent of the bishops), that concerns me.

From an Orthodox viewpoint, ( only my own…perhaps some Orthodox like the new Vatican translation but then, they overlook the process by which it has been promulgated), such an approach is questionable, to say the least.

It might be argued that, if the Vatican treats its own “Latin” faithful in such a way, how would it treat its “Orthodox” faithful if the Churches should re-unite?

Let’s start with issue number one. What makes you think that the American bishops as a group SHOULD be free to determine what translation to use? Americans don’t even form a majority of English speaking Catholics. Unlike in Orthodoxy, there is no such thing as a national Church in Catholicism. So the American bishops cannot speak for anglophone bishops generally, and have no authority to decide independently on liturgical matters with respect to the USA. There is the bishop and the Pope, and nothing in between. To the extent that the American bishops have any collective (as opposed to individual) say in this matter, it would have to have been delegated by Rome. It’s as if you were suggesting that a province in Russia should be free to decide on its own what translation of the Bible to use without reference to the patriarchate to which it belongs, or to delay a new collective translation by repeatedly asking for new changes.

Next, there is a history to this translation problem that you are ignoring. The Vatican expressed its concerns with respect to ICEL early on. The American bishops dawdled for ages on changes, with liberal bishops fighting a rear guard battle to keep the ICEL. Rome got fed up and ordered the bishops to proceed. They did so by delivering a new translation that did not address all the concerns Rome had raised earlier. So Rome essentially took matters out of their hands and supervised the work itself. It may not be perfect, but the dissenting bishops have lost credibility through their endless and often transparently ideologically motivated delaying tactics. Once ICEL is finally buried, there will be scope for adapting and improving the new translation organically over time. The current dissent is just intent on stalling. If Troutmann & Co. still wants new changes, they can argue for them after the new translation has been put in place.

And then we have this bizarre notion that this is a fight between Rome and the American episcopate. What makes you think that most of the bishops are at odds with Rome on this? The protracted delays have all been the work of a noisy minority trying to abuse of the natural instinct of the bishops to try to reach consensus, all in order to come up with something short of what Rome is asking. Most of the bishops are demonstrably fed up, and just want the issue resolved.

Finally, why do you feel that the internal regulation of the ROMAN liturgy (which IS, let’s remember, the liturgy of the Roman see itself) should have any bearing on Rome’s relationship with a hypothetically reconciled Orthodoxy? Are we Latins not to be allowed to resolve such issues according to our own canons? Rome wants to proceed, the American bishops want to comply, and the laity want this settled. But we should let a small number of American prelates delay resolution indefinitely so as not to scare the Orthodox? That’s flatly not a sort of reunion I would be interested in.

Those who wish Vatican II’s decrees and recommendations to be followed or those who don’t?

Who do you think follows Vatican II in its spirit and vision?

Remember that the impetus of Vatican II came from those who studied the history of the Church and who saw the disastrous effects an “ultramontane” theology had on the Church.

I think that you are too obliging of following the current Vatican “line”, never questioning its logic or its method.

As far as what the Vatican does with the ROMAN, ( your emphasis) may be its own “business”, but it does affect how it will treat, in future, Orthodox who choose, ( if ever), “union with Rome”.

You did not adequately respond to the “canonical question” presented, which is, “what responsibility do bishops have, given the decrees and intention of Vatican II?”

Your argument is weak.

Please respond with a more cogent, reasoned, less angry, response.

You did not adequately respond…Orthodox, who pay any attention to this, ( I truly doubt there are any), will have similar questions as regards the role of bishops to have any voice in determining the enunciation of the faith.

Essentially speaking, what’s occuring is that that RC bishops are merely the mouthpiece of one voice, that of the Vatican, ( pre-selected “yes men” who have no independent voice- the standard Orthodox objection if you read history), and no other voice, even that of educated laypeople, ( a new phenomenon in RCdom but not in Orthodoxy), can be heard.

Perhaps I’m unusual in that I know, from the standpoint of a layperson, ( though I have served as an altar server and thus also know what an Orthodox priest does “in secret” ), both Liturgies in a little more depth. Perhaps not, ( I certainly hope the last for the sake of humility, ( Orthodox in-joke)).

At any rate, what I saw from Vatican II was an impulse towards “real” union with Orthodox Churches, ( based on the research/ reflection by very competent scholars, ( some promoted to ecclesial offices, ahem, recognition of their worth, despite the vicious attacks on them)), being derailed by what I would call Vatican I types, fixated on papal power etc; ( ultramontanism).

The RC Liturgy is the “battlefield””, ( terrible metaphor), for that very impulse.

The irony of all of this is that the goal of the battle, so to speak, ( the Western European, North American, ( including Canada) culture, has, because of the battle, left the field and removed itself as the goal…( which is why Metropolitan Hilarion’s remarks about the Anglican/ Episcopal Church are so peculiarly “offside”, so to speak).

This at least is a fair question. Obviously they aren’t liberal in the sense that Harnack was. I mean bishops who are more open than most to liturgical experimentation and novelty.

“Those who wish Vatican II’s decrees and recommendations to be followed or those who don’t?

“Who do you think follows Vatican II in its spirit and vision?”

You are using code words that mean different things to different people (as I was doing with the term “liberal bishops”). I really don’t see how Vatican II can legitimately have a “spirit” or “vision” that extends beyond its approved decrees. It’s up to you to explain how you think the council was relevant to the translation dispute. You are right: I don’t “get it.”

“As far as what the Vatican does with the ROMAN, ( your emphasis) may be its own “business”, but it does affect how it will treat, in future, Orthodox who choose, ( if ever), “union with Rome”.”

I asked you for an explanation on this point and you just repeat yourself. How are the two, Orthodoxy and the Roman liturgy, related? Perhaps you mean Western-rite Orthodoxy. I assume they they will be in the same boat as Byzantine Catholics. We will cross that bridge when we come to it. In the meanwhile, let me know when the Patriarchate approves removal of the epiclesis and the use of unleavened bread.

“You did not adequately respond to the “canonical question” presented, which is, “what responsibility do bishops have, given the decrees and intention of Vatican II?””

Seriously, I don’t understand the question:

The bishops individually or collectively, and if collectively in what collectivity?

Responsibility with respect to what and to whom?

Which Vatican II decrees are you referring to?

How is this “intention” of Vatican II different from what is embodied in its decrees?

I still don’t see what any of this has to do with the translation issue, however.

“Essentially speaking, what’s occuring is that that RC bishops are merely the mouthpiece of one voice, that of the Vatican, ( pre-selected “yes men” who have no independent voice- the standard Orthodox objection if you read history), and no other voice, even that of educated laypeople, ( a new phenomenon in RCdom but not in Orthodoxy), can be heard.”

Please demonstrate to me how, in Orthodoxy, a minority of bishops and lay scholars in ONE country enjoy greater authority than the rest of the episcopate including its protos in determining the rubrics to follow in the liturgy.

Part of the problem seems to be that we have radically different understandings of who the actors are in this dispute. You seem to give the impression that this is the Pope against the bishops and educated laity generally. If I am sounding angry, it is because I am not an American, and I find the suggestion that the Church should bend to the will of relatively small group of English-speaking Americans breathtakingly arrogant.

Perhaps you could spell out explicitly and demonstrate how you think arguments over the translation of the Roman rite into English, Vatican II, and Orthodoxy are related?

It appears that you seem to see episcopal authority here as a common thread. But all I get is the inference that any bishop anywhere (except the Pope, apparently) should be able to either determine the liturgy on his own, or exercise a veto on his fellow bishops proceeding with implementation of canonically agreed changes.

Even if this were how Orthodoxy operated with respect to the Byzantine liturgy (which I doubt), how would this be relevant to the Latin rite, or to prospects for reunion?

If those who oppose the new translation are somehow following the “Orthodox way,” then I would have to conclude that the “Orthodox way” would apparently not be the way for us.

I do not have one iota of sympathy for those wanting to stall the new translation. If Troutmann wants to see a commission set up to consider further changes at some point in future, on the other hand, I could go with that. I will grant that the new translation can be further improved, but I don’t see that as sufficient grounds for stalling given the problems with the ICEL translation now in use.

As we seem to have radically different pictures of the sequence of events here, let me revisit it once more so that you can point out any disagreement;

1. Vatican II authorizes in principle a vernacular version of the liturgy.

2. The Pope appoints Fr. Bugnini to head a liturgical commission which produces the NO.

3. The NO is then translated into various languages for liturgical use in the vernacular, the ICEL being tasked with translating it into English.

4. The American bishops are delegated the right to approve the translation for local use, and they do.

5. A number of perceived problems emerge with respect to the translation, and Rome asks for revisions.

6. This being the USA, progressives and traditionalists decide to use the original translation and proposed revisions as their field of battle (as you put it).

7. The proposed revisions that emerge from the review fail to win Rome’s approval. Exasperated both by the delay and the way the revision process has been politicized, Rome imposes a new revision which is approved by the bishops for use in the USA.

8. A small group of progressives and nit-pickers (my characterization) can’t let go and campaign unsuccessfully for further delay so that “flaws” in the new revision can be addressed.

That’s basically where we are now. I don’t see any problem with how Rome has acted here. It imposed revisions to a proposed translation which was subsequently approved for use by the American bishops. To characterize the bishops as yes-men here is just ad hominem polemics.

And just to give our Orthodox friends a more balanced view of the translation dispute than that offered by the whatifwejustsaidwait crowd, along with an idea of how long a wait has already been involved, here is an article from the other side of the US Catholic spectrum (note the date):

The narrative of the opponents of the new translation essentially goes like this:

1. The US bishops approved the ICEL translation on a nod, via a small committee. (good)

2. Rome raised objections. (bad)

3. The US bishops as a group focused a bit more on the relevant issues (oops) and, in deference to the conference’s liturgical committee, agreed to only minor changes. (grudgingly good)

4. Rome was still not satisfied, and offered a new translation of its own, bypassing ICEL. (Very bad! Ultramontanus redux!)

5. A new generation of bishops (all spineless cowards and placemen, apparently, except for the noble, outstanding, gender-inclusive holdover Troutman) approve this new translation. (Unclean! Shameless apostasy from the “spirit of Vatican II”! First sign of the Apocalypse!)

It honestly looks to me as if you were taken for a ride here, and have swallowed hook, line and sinker, a highly biased and self-serving “liberal” interpretation of the Vatican’s handling of this issue, and are now trying to turn this minor, localized, and purely internal (and now settled!) Latin-rite liturgical dispute into a broad ecclesiological issue of ecumenical significance. We at least agree on one thing: I still don’t get it.

I think it’s a dispute on how the Vatican has resorted to its habitual process of resolving disputes and that this approach is, essentially, outmoded. It does not respect the bishops, their collegial role, or the laity and its role.

Did you read Bishop Maurice Taylor’s article?

That’s who I refer to- not the bishop that you’ve constantly used as the spokesman for those disputing the translation, ( which he isn’t).

You mean that short one paragraph link you offered with sample quotes from the three translations?

What is there to refute? It doesn’t even bother to offer the Latin original for purposes of comparison.

Please explain to me how you think the Vatican has failed to respect the bishops (particularly in their collegial role), or the laity (or their role).

On what grounds are the critics of the new translation claiming to speak for the laity and the American episcopate? Seriously, what makes YOU think they are representative of either the bishops or the laity?

Do you have anything to go on other than the claims themselves? What makes you consider the bishops’ approval of the new translation by a crushing majority somehow unrepresentative of their considered view?

It’s easy to portray them all as Vatican stooges, but what is your evidence for this?

I always thought the Traddies were ridiculously predisposed to seeing conspiracy at work everywhere. It seems that this predilection is more widely shared than I had assumed, and that otherwise sensible people are buying into it.

If you won’t answer any of my questions above, try answering at least this one. How are the Pope’s actions incompatible with the relationship between a protos and his bishops as outlined in the Apostolic Canons?

Can you have it both ways? Liberal bishops undermine the liturgical translations authorized by Rome, but Rome appointed these bishops. Hence, possibly, Orthodox besument at the dog’s breakfast of our church governance.

Ector, there’s just one problem with such “bemusement.” The Orthodox way of picking bishops hasn’t always been a stunning success, either. Read what the folks over at ocanews.org say about the Antiochians’ Met. Herman. Oy.

Things are tough all over. And bishops can turn out to be bad apples, no matter how they’re chosen.

I see the issue as more complex than just liturgical liberal vs. an obscurantist Papacy. Those who oppose the new translation do so on differing grounds: some identify closely with the ICEL process with which they have been professionally involved, and consider the Papal intervention to be a personal slight; others feel that the laity are now used to the ICEL translation, and that further change would just be disruptive; others find the new translation too grammatically and etymologically awkward for unlearned laity, and can point to what are arguably textual errors; and (least justifiably) others oppose the move away from “dynamic equivalence” through which they may have hoped to foist liturgical innovations unsupported in the Latin original.

Here is my view. For what its worth, I strongly suspect it is shared as well by the overwhelming majority of Church-going English-speaking Catholics (though it’s hard to poll on such a complicated subject). We have had the NO since about 1970. After 40 years of toing and froing (which contrary to Evagrius’ claims, demonstrates and extraordinary forbearance on the Vatican’s part), we finally have a vernacular version that both the Papacy and a majority of the US episcopate can live with. Further delay and cavilling at this point serves no useful purpose, particularly as the possibility of further minor modifications over the next few years to resolve remaining textual difficulties has not been ruled out.

I have always found the essay by Fr. Florovsky about the limits of the church to be one of the better explorations of the topic. What it has led me to believe is there is a lot of grey area when it comes to the demarcation points of the church.

Another Messy Translation: The Third Eucharistic Prayer
PREX EUCHARISTICA III

Vere sanctus es, Domine,

et merito te laudat omnis a te condita creatura,

quia per Filium tuum, Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum,

Spiritus Sancti operante virtute

vivificas et sanctificas universa,

et populum tibi congregare non desinis,

ut a solis ortu usque ad occasum

oblatio munda offeratur nomini tuo.

Father, you are holy indeed, and all creation rightly gives you praise. All life, all holiness comes from you through your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, by the working of the Holy Spirit. From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name.

THE NEW TRANSLATION:

You are indeed Holy, O Lord, and all you have created rightly gives you praise, for through your Son our Lord Jesus Christ, by the power and working of the Holy Spirit, you give life to all things and make them holy, and you never cease to gather a people to yourself, so that from the rising of the sun to its setting a pure sacrifice may be offered to your name.

This sentence is too long, and cumbersome. The biblical ‘Father’ has the advantage over “O Lord” of bringing out more clearly the Trinitarian structure of the Eucharist and of this prayer. “All you have created” is awkward; if literalism it to prevail, why not “every creature established by you” or “wrought by you”? “Through your” and “by the” are less effectively combined in the new version than in the current version. “Power and working” is an unidiomatic and unexpressive pleonasm; “to your name” is very odd in English, and “to the glory of your name” captures the meaning better. “Pure oblation” would be better than “pure sacrifice”.

“From the rising of the sun to its setting” reproduces the RSV translation of Malachi 1:11, where the phrase is placed in parallel with “in every place”, suggesting a spatial rather than temporal reference, namely the space of all the nations in contrast to Israel. The new translation conveys the temporal sense “from dawn to dusk”, but the meaning intended by the Latin text probably was “from the place where the sun rises to the place it sets” (the Japanese Mass text has the word tokoro, place, twice here). If so, “from east to west” is more correct in that it avoids this ambiguity.

Supplices ergo te, Domine, deprecamur,

ut haec munera, quae tibi sacranda detulimus,

eodem Spiritu sanctificare digneris,

ut Corpus et + Sanguis fiant Filii tui Domini nostri Iesu Christi,

cuius mandato haec mysteria celebramus.

And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this eucharist.

THE NEW TRANSLATION:

Therefore, O Lord, we humbly implore you: by the same Spirit graciously make holy these gifts we have brought to you for consecration, that they may become the Body and Blood of your Son our Lord Jesus Christ at whose command we celebrate these mysteries.

“Therefore” is unsuited to the language of prayer; it is used mostly in the context of logical argument in English. “For consecration” is a misleading translation of “sacranda” – it means dedication of the gifts not their consecration in the sense of transubstantiation. The result is that “consecration” could mean the same thing as “become the Body and Blood” whereas in the Latin the reference is to two different things.

Ipse enim in qua nocte tradebatur

accepit panem et tibi gratias agens

benedixit, fregit, deditque discipulis suis, dicens:

On the night he was betrayed, he took bread and gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:

THE NEW TRANSLATION:

For on the night he was betrayed he himself took bread, and giving you thanks he said the blessing, broke the bread and gave it to his disciples, saying:

“He himself” grates here, its emphasis heavier than in Latin. In English “he himself” suggests a contrast with someone else, as in “It was not I but he himself who said it.” Here the implied suggestion is “It was not a servant or one of the apostles or a priest of the later Church who took bread, but Jesus himself.”

Simili modo, postquam cenatum est,

accipiens calicem, et tibi gratias agens benedixit,

deditque discipulis suis, dicens:

When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:

THE NEW TRANSLATION:

In the same way, when supper was ended, he took the chalice, and giving you thanks he said the blessing, and gave it to his disciples, saying:

The “it” here could suggest the blessing rather than the chalice.

Memores igitur, Domine,

eiusdem Filii tui salutiferae passionis

necnon mirabilis resurrectionis et ascensionis in caelum,

sed et praestolantes alterum eius adventum,

offerimus tibi, gratias referentes,

hoc sacrificium vivum et sanctum.

Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.

THE NEW TRANSLATION:

Therefore, O Lord, we celebrate the memorial of the saving passion of your Son, his wondrous Resurrection and Ascension into heaven, and as we look forward to his second coming, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.

“Celebrate the memorial of” is a clumsy, verbose translation of “memores”; “calling to mind” is correct. “Wondrous” is an inadequate expression for the Resurrection in English. “Look forward to” has a casual connotation in contemporary English; “await” is more accurate and expressive. The “and as” for “sed et” is hopelessly lame and creates a graceless syntax: “We celebrate X, Y, and as we look forward to W, we offer Z.” Better would have been: “Bearing in mind X, and Y no less, and also awaiting W, we offer Z.” Introducing the indicative verbs “celebrate” and “look forward” spoils the rhythm and natural syntax that was preserved and respected in “calling to mind” and “ready to greet him” in the current translation; which thus turns out to be more faithful to the Latin.

Respice, quaesumus,

in oblationem Ecclesiae tuae

et, agnoscens Hostiam, cuius voluisti immolatione placari,

concede, ut qui Corpore et Sanguine Filii tui reficimur,

Spiritu eius Sancto repleti,

unum corpus et unus spiritus inveniamur in Christo.

Look with favor on your Church’s offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood, may be filled with his Holy Spirit, and become one body, one spirit in Christ.

THE NEW TRANSLATION:

Look, we pray, upon the oblation of your Church, and, recognizing the sacrificial Victim by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself, grant that we, who are nourished by the Body and Blood of your Son, and filled with his Holy Spirit, may become one body, one spirit in Christ.

“Recognizing” is bizarre in English, suggesting that God is short-sighted. The opening words of this sentence are fustian and in no way improve on the current text in accuracy or expressiveness. The words “recognizing the sacrificial Victim by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself” are an unattractive “mouthful” and sound cumbersomely pleonastic, especially because they are packed into a subordinate clause. “See the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself” in contrast is a noble and vivid sentence. The translation shies away from the literal “by whose immolation you willed to be placated.”

Ipse nos tibi perficiat munus aeternum,

ut cum electis tuis hereditatem consequi valeamus,

inprimis cum beatissima Virgine, Dei Genetrice, Maria,

cum beatis Apostolis tuis

et gloriosis Martyribus (cum Sancto N.)

et omnibus Sanctis,

quorum intercessione perpetuo apud te confidimus adiuvari.

May he make us an everlasting gift to you and enable us to share in the inheritance of your saints, with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles, the martyrs, [Saint N.] and all your saints, on whose constant intercession we rely for help.

THE NEW TRANSLATION:

May he make of us an eternal offering to you, so that we may obtain an inheritance with your elect, especially with the most blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with your blessed Apostles and glorious Martyrs, [with Saint N.] and with all the Saints, on whose constant intercession in your presence we rely for unfailing help.

Here “ipse” is translated “he” not “he himself,” which shows it was not necessary to translates it as “he himself” earlier. Calling human beings “eternal” in English is always incorrect. We do not say an “eternal brotherhood” or “the eternal Communion of Saints” but rather a “perpetual brotherhood” and “the everlasting Communion of Saints.” “Your elect” is fustian; it sounds like old-fashioned Protestant jargon to modern English ears. “Those you have chosen” would be a perfectly literal and faithful translation of the Latin. “Obtain an inheritance with” is misleading. “Especially with” is not a good translation of “inprimis.” The correct translation might be something more like: “Attain the inheritance, alongside, in the first place…”

Haec Hostia nostrae reconciliationis proficiat,

quaesumus, Domine,

ad totius mundi pacem atque salutem.

Ecclesiam tuam, peregrinantem in terra,

in fide et caritate firmare digneris

cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N.

et Episcopo nostro N.,

cum episcopali ordine et universo clero

et omni populo acquisitionis tuae.

Lord, may this sacrifice, which has made our peace with you, advance the peace and salvation of all the world. Strengthen in faith and love your pilgrim Church on earth; your servant, Pope N., , our Bishop N., and all the bishops, with the clergy and the entire people your Son has gained for you.

THE NEW TRANSLATION:

May this Sacrifice of our reconciliation, we pray, O Lord, advance the peace and salvation of all the world. Be pleased to confirm in faith and charity your pilgrim Church on earth, with your servant N. our Pope and N. our Bishop, the Order of Bishops, all the clergy, and the entire people you make your own.

“Sacrifice of our reconciliation” is incorrect; it is not our reconciliation that is sacrificed; rather the sacrifices effects our reconciliation. Also in English, “our reconciliation” on its own suggests the reconciliation between us, as when an estranged but reunited couple speak of “our reconciliation.” The meaning of the Latin, however, is “our reconciliation with God.” “Firmare” is more accurately translated by “strengthen” than by “confirm,” especially because the latter word brings in misleadings from contemporary usage: “Please confirm that you are coming on the 23rd.” “Consolidate” or “make secure” would perhaps be better. “The order of bishops” is not a piece of jargon in common church use today.

Votis huius familiae,

quam tibi astare voluisti, adesto propitius.

Omnes filios tuos ubique dispersos

tibi, clemens Pater, miseratus coniunge.

Father, hear the prayers of the family you have gathered here before you. In mercy and love unite all your children wherever they may be.

THE NEW TRANSLATION:

Listen graciously to the prayers of this family, whom you have summoned before you. In your compassion, O Merciful Father, gather to yourself all of your children scattered throughout the earth.

“Summoned” is fustian, and has a grim connotation in contemporary usage: “The headmaster summoned me to his office. A summons was served.” “Compassion” and “merciful” is a displeasing pleonasm, avoidable by translating “clemens” as “loving.”

Fratres nostros defunctos,

et omnes qui, tibi placentes, ex hoc saeculo transierunt,

in regnum tuum benignus admitte,

ubi fore speramus,

ut simul gloria tua perenniter satiemur,

per Christum Dominum nostrum,

per quem mundo bona cuncta largiris.

Welcome into your kingdom our departed brothers and sisters, and all who have left this world in your friendship. We hope to enjoy for ever the vision of your glory, through Christ our Lord, from whom all good things come.

THE NEW TRANSLATION:

To our departed brothers and sisters and to all who were pleasing to you at their passing from this life, give kind admittance to your kingdom. There we hope to enjoy for ever the fullness of your glory through Christ our Lord through whom you bestow on the world all that is good.

“Give kind admittance” suggest a ticket office request. The kingdom sounds awfully static here. The “in” of “in regnum tuum” has the dynamic sense of “into” and this is lost in “give admittance to your kingdom.” The inversion, “to our departed… give…” is awkward, as we are kept waiting too long for the verb. “Where we hope we shall be that we may be perennially sated with Thy glory” would be a literal translation; “to enjoy for ever the fullness of your glory” is already dynamic equivalence, and as such is no improvement on “the vision of your glory.” “The fullness of your glory” is in any case ambiguous. It suggests that there is a fullness of divine glory as opposed to a partial measure thereof – such a distinction is alien to Scripture and to orthodox theology. The word “simul” is untranslated in both versions. There should be a comma before “through Christ our Lord.” The two “throughs” are graceless and the Prayer ends lamely in the new version.

It seems that the new translation is a careless piece of work, falling short of the much-maligned current translation even in respect of fidelity to the Latin original.

“The biblical ‘Father’ has the advantage over “O Lord” of bringing out more clearly the Trinitarian structure of the Eucharist and of this prayer.”

It would seem I am not the only one who doesn’t “get it.” (I might further mention that it is rather difficult to engage with someone who insists that I don’t understand the underlying issues, yet who also treats as rhetorical all my questions aimed at seeking clarification.)

Even if I were to grant your argument above, surely it would apply to the Latin original as well as the English. The American bishops do not have the unilateral authority to change the rite in this way, either canonically, customarily or morally. This is a substantive and not just stylistic alteration.

It would seem that a meeting of minds between us on this issue is simply not going to happen as we appear to share no relevant axioms on what is involved, who the actors represent, or who has what authority.

I could waste more time explaining why I prefer the new translation on virtually all the points you raise in this lengthy example, but it would be rather pointless. I am going to respect instead our host’s suggestion that we drop the matter and post no further on the translation issue, particularly as the matter is now moot. The bishops have approved the new translation, and it will be implemented in the coming year.

If this really was a test of ecclesiology acceptable to Orthodoxy, and that Rome has now decisively failed it, then I am resigned to not seeing unity in my lifetime. The Latin rite has enough liturgical chaos to clean up as it is without having its hands tied by “ecumenical” scruples that in this case are wholely misplaced and inapproriate.

I think the discussion on the Roman Missal is getting a little arcane, that’s all. If you can bring it back to ecclesiology, that’s great; but I think getting into the accuracy or style of the new translation is just a bit too far afield.

Why I posted the article was to show Michael that the controversy does have a legitimate origin. It isn’t just a “tiny minority” of “liberal” bishops and lay people who want to “experiment” with the Roman Latin Liturgy.

I do think that the controversy reflects badly on the Vatican’s usual approach to anything that runs counter to what “it wants”.

Even if the translation being pushed had been done by Shakespeare, Milton and Dryden, it would still be objectionable if the process to promulgate was the current one.

I’m not a linguist but I do have a question for those Orthodox who may know the languages used in the Orthodox Liturgy. Are there major differences between Greek, Russian ( Old Slavonic- do contemporary average Russians understand it?), Arabic, Serbian, etc; in the major prayers of the Liturgy? Is there, at present, an interest in translating the Old Russian into contemporary Russian? I’m rather curious as to what approach, if any, is being made and by whom.

Well I “re-thought” Eucharistic discipline. Today I performed my first solo proskomedia and remembered Fr. Paul, Michael, Evagrius, Diane, and Irenaeus, as well as myself. All were commemorated and later wiped into the precious body and blood for the forgiveness of our sins.

While formal communion is not yet possible I think this is a very profound way in which the Orthodox can pray for our Roman Catholic brethren and ourselves through the common cup of the Eucharist.

On the other hand, he cannot hope and pray for a weakening of papal authority because that would lead to the disintegration of the Roman Church, and take it even further from Orthodoxy.

That seems to be an overstatement to me. I’m not sure a change to universal primacy, and the nature of the relationship between East and West, would lead to a disintegration of the RCC. Meaning I don’t think it would weaken the Papacy within the Latin Church if this happened, and probably the argument can (and has been) made that it would strengthen it.

He didn’t write “universal primacy.” The words he used were “papal authority.” 99% of the Pope’s practical authority in the Church relates purely to his regional primacy in the West. I suggest you reread the whole sentence you cited with this distinction in mind.

Until people can get past this conceptual block, there can be no progress towards reunion (which may well be why some Orthodox polemicists consistantly refuse to internalize the distinction).

99% of the Pope’s practical authority in the Church relates purely to his regional primacy in the West.

That’s why I was saying I didn’t agree with Fr. Reardon’s statement; because I don’t think a change in universal primacy (i.e. the relation of East to West) is tantamount to erosion of Papal authority where it is most relevant and primarily practiced (i.e. the Latin Church). I guess I wasn’t really clear.

This is a good point. Though Rome understands her primacy in a particular way, it doesn’t need to be exercised to its full extent everywhere. Rome could learn to restrain itself from meddling in Eastern affairs, except in very extreme cases. Is this what you’re getting at?

On the other hand, I’m not sure how many Orthodox would accept such an arrangement, because it would involve a kind of implicit approval, or at least a tolerance, of Rome’s own understanding of its primatial duties, even if, practically speaking, they would amount only to “emergency powers” towards the East. This kind of agreement would be a no-go for many Orthodox who believe the papal claims themselves to be heretical.

I think Reardon has in mind this kind of disagreement with “universal primacy”: not merely a practical disagreement, but a deeper, principled disagreement about the very nature of the Church itself.

I would like to offer a few thoughts for discussion, by first attempting to disentangle the main threads concerning Papal authority and then indicating to what degree I think there might be some give on the Catholic side.

1. The Pope’s doctrinal authority as president (protos) of the episcopate.

2. The Pope’s supreme appellate authority with respect to the universal Church.

3. The Pope’s “regional” primacy and supreme legislative and judicial authority with respect to the Latin rite.

There are other strands, but they are marginal or transitional and can be set aside for our current purposes.

Catholics believe that 1 is by divine institution. Most see it as dominical, citing the Petrine texts. A minority see it more as a providential extension of the dominical institution, but still as something explicitly willed by God for his Church and part of the original deposit of the faith. Either view is doctrinally acceptable. The practical and theological implications of 1 might still be open to discussion, but they would have to conform to the way this authority was exercised and received prior to the schism, BOTH in the pre and post concilliar periods.

Some Orthodox seem to accept one or the other of these Catholic understandings (though most obviously don’t, at least not in this day and age). Those who do, tend to view very narrowly (and as ill-defined) the scope for its practical application. Some see it as effectively suspended pending resolution of the schism (at which they would envisage its automatic resumption). Yet others see it as still in force, even with the schism, but limited to a moral/charismatic dimension the juridical impact of which could only be expressed negatively (for example, these Orthodox would contest the universally binding nature of the canons of an “ecumenical council” not received by Rome, schism or no schism). These are, of course, minority views in Orthodoxy, but no one, insofar as I can tell, has ever been anathematized solely for holding them.

The first key question with respect to 1, is whether most Orthodox can be brought to accept that the Pope’s presidency (which most already recognize in principle) is divinely willed. The second is whether they can accept his ability to speak authoritatively (i.e. infallibly) for the episcopate, even if only in very severely constrained and qualified circumstances.

Catholics see 2 and 3 as purely human institutions (though obviously not unrelated to, or arrived at independently from, 1). 3 falls largely in the MYOB category as far as Latin Catholics are concerned. Orthodox would have to martial very powerful arguments to convince Latin Catholics that their bishops did not have the canonical right to vest supreme legislative and judicial authority in the Primate.

2 is where I think progress can most easily be made. We have Sardica to work from as a base. The question we have to ask ourselves is why Sardica ultimately didn’t work. My own view is that its canons had two crippling weaknesses: what happened if the bishop of Rome was unsatisfied with the decision rendered by the three judges he designated to hear an appeal for outside his patriarchate was not specified; the canons also failed to specify the canonical consequences of defiance or contumacy, presumably because it was understood that papal judgments would be enforced by the civil power (i.e. the emperor) through the threat of exile or detention–not a practical mechanism available today.

I can envisage a number of agreed fixes. In principle the judges appointed by the Pope to hear an appeal should all come from the Patriarchate concerned (I believe Sardica already specifies this, but I could be wrong). If he is dissatisfied with the decision or the way the appeal was heard, he could, for example, have it heard again by three new designated judges whose findings he would respect as final, if arrived at unanimously.

For enforcement, I can’t think of anything other than the excommunication of the defiant party/parties until they bring themselves into compliance. If this results in schism, then schism was inevitable anyway.

Any thoughts or comments? Keep in mind we are not negotiating anything here. I am just interested in whether you think these ideas could move the discussion forward.

This breakdown is helpful and is roughly the breakdown I have used in my own understanding. I have tried, again in my personal understanding, to un-muddy the waters of “papal authority” (a term often wielded with an utter lack of precision). I prefer instead to use the canonical term prerogatives, which speaks directly to the specific privileges of a particular seat.

In short, I personally have no problem with #3. The latin rite is (mostly) an internal concern for the Roman church. The Orthodox experience has been somewhat different because we share the same rite but have multiple apostolic sees. Each see maintains the prerogative of the liturgical life within its own see. We have no “captain of the rite” as it were. The lack of any attempt by Greece to impose its liturgical changes on the rest of Orthodoxy proves this point. This has led to some complicated liturgical situations in the past, say perhaps the gradual merger of the Byzantine and Antiochian rites, but in general there has been remarkable uniformity of rite without a single “principle” to oversee it all.

I said “mostly” because there are a few concerns in my mind. First is, of course, the seeming inability for many Catholics (even bishops, and perhaps even the pontiff himself) to clearly delineate #3 and #1. One need only point to the Latinization of the Greek rite in the Greek Catholic churches to prove this point. Yet the most concerning aspect of this point is that most view the Latin rite as the “universal” rite and all others as “ethnic.” Second, I have grave concern over the “politicization” of the Latin rite. You have spoken yourself about the ancient and venerable Roman Canon, yet this very canon was changed at VatII to add a weak epiklesis as a political nod to the Orthodox. This politicization is far more pronounced as we begin to look at the art and architecture of Catholic churches (which is rightly a part of the rite). This politicization is not a recent development, one has only to point to the problems solved by the standardization of Trent in this regard. This problem does seem to be avoided in Orthodoxy largely by the fact the the rite is co-owned by each and every bishop and each and every bishop is responsible for the fealty to the rites tradition (though not statically so).

One last related note is that while the RC looks in disbelief at the addition of Greek forms into the Latin rite in the so called Western Orthodox parishes, one must remember that this betrays a different understanding of the relationship between the bishop and the liturgy. For RCs, the Pope is the arbiter of the Latin rite and all changes are properly his, with the input of course from other bishops. For Orthodox, the diocesan bishop is the arbiter of any and all rites within his diocese. He of course strives for commonality with his brother bishops, particularly of his Metropolitan and Patriarch, but the decisions are his (and the responsibility for those decisions are his).

I do find it interesting that for the Orthodox, no single owner has resulted in remarkable liturgical uniformity while for the RCs a single owner has resulted in mass politicization (pun intended). Perhaps I am too bold in attributing causation however. It is probably more likely that the politicization resulted in a tighter, increasingly centralized control (again Trent). I found it quite funny that, when speaking to the superior of a Catholic monastery in Rome about this difference he bluntly said: “Its because the Easterners truly converted, while the Romans just maintained their pagan ways.” I can’t speak to the historical veracity of that statement, but I appreciate the culture of Orthodoxy which requires each bishop to maintain the catholic faith (I think most Catholics here would appreciate such a culture).

Regarding #2, I probably have much less of a problem with this than most of my Orthodox brothers and sisters. I, like you, recognize that each bishop, standing in the authority of the apostles, has universal jurisdiction. I think that canonically we Orthodox can and must recognize this. Without it, how are we to affirm that the Patriarch of (then) Constantinople rightly deposed and replaced other Patriarchs on numerous occasions (at least in Antioch and Alexandria) without council? Yet, my perspective is that among most RCs, #2 and #1 are again confused in practice.

Its quite obvious that #1 is the greatest difficulty for Orthodox. This difficulty is not new. I think one could argue that the difficulty is present in the various controversies of the filioque. Its quite obvious that in the political battle over the liturgy between Rome and Paris (there is that politicization again), Paris eventually won out. In the ongoing dispute involving Rome (and Spain/France by proxy) and Constantinople, several issues came to the fore:
1. Is the change of a universally held creed in the Latin rite the purview of the arbiter of that rite (Rome) or of the universal Church?
2. Does the pope have the prerogative of requiring universal subscription to a particular doctrine and/or creed (to use later terminology) ex sese, that is apart from council?

These are both very complicated questions and they are tied to some very important ecclesiological perceptions: namely, the East saw the creed as the unifying element where the West saw the pope as the unifying element. One of the things I don’t think Orthodox give Rome enough credit for is that no change in the creed in Greek was attempted: Rome initially saw this as a local liturgical matter in a way that the East did not (and does not). This is why I suspect most Catholics consider filioque “not a big deal” while Orthodox consider it “a big deal indeed.” For the first, the filioque represents a local liturgical change and for the second the filioque represents a change of the catholic faith. One must admit, however, that even to the pope, what was once a local liturgical change at times became a universal change that the East must submit to. Thus, the question presents itself: does the pope have the prerogative of requiring universal subscription to a doctrine (the filioque) without a council? If the answer is yes, I see no way to avoid VatI without landing into the absurdity that the pope can require subscription to falsehood. Orthodox however have clearly and consistently answered “no” to this question. As hopeful for union as I am, I do not think it can ever be achieved so long as Rome maintains to hold this prerogative while, and this second part is important, anathematizing anyone who thinks otherwise (“So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.”). Further, every attempt to permit communion with Orthodox while this anathema stays on the books appears, frankly, disingenuous. Thus, our modern situation is one where it appears to Orthodox that Catholics wish to simultaneously anathematize us and admit us to communion. Orthodox cannot do this.

That being said, hopefully these issues can be overcome. And at the least we should strive to know one another better.

a deeper, principled disagreement about the very nature of the Church itself

(a disagreement which has yet to take into full account the authority the popes exercised during the first millennium. However one sees this authority, it is arguably a darned sight more significant than anything that exists in today’s popeless Eastern Orthodoxy…not expressing this well, but I think y’all get the idea)

Gotta run back to fit session for Spring 2011 apparel line…later, gators…

Though Rome understands her primacy in a particular way, it doesn’t need to be exercised to its full extent everywhere. Rome could learn to restrain itself from meddling in Eastern affairs, except in very extreme cases. Is this what you’re getting at?

Yeah, but I wouldn’t say restrain itself per se. The only conceivable compromise I can think of between the two sides is for an agreement of extra-terratorial jurisdiction (perhaps that’s not the right term) to happen at the invitation of a particular church or churches. Meaning the Papacy could resolve problems in other particular churches by invitation in cases of necessity, and this would be a form of universal primacy acceptable potentially to both sides as a compromise between the two extremes.
Setting aside the theological underpinnings of all of this for a second, I think you have a couple of aspects of “on the ground” reality that have to enter our thinking:

One is clearly the Papacy has to understand that even if it believes it wields universal ordinary jurisdiction, it simply couldn’t exercise this within the Orthodox Church. I’m taking that as an assetion to reality that I don’t think anyone would deny.

Secondly, acceptance of the Papal dogma is not framed in soteriological terms as it was with Florence. It’s not even a precursor to eucharistic sharing now. I think this is key for understanding what kind of relationship the churches can have with each other.

On the other hand, I’m not sure how many Orthodox would accept such an arrangement, because it would involve a kind of implicit approval, or at least a tolerance, of Rome’s own understanding of its primatial duties, even if, practically speaking, they would amount only to “emergency powers” towards the East. This kind of agreement would be a no-go for many Orthodox who believe the papal claims themselves to be heretical.

I’m sure such an agreement would be unacceptable to many on both sides, because it does require overlooking some key differences such as what is the very nature of the church itself (i.e. foundational on the Papacy or not).

I understand the position that there has to be total doctrinal harmony in order for their to be eucharistic sharing. That makes sense. I also acknowledge that on the ground, it does happen without total doctrinal harmony. I have seen this personally in relation to Oriental Orthodox faithful. I also think the numerous examples of tacit, or even basically explicit acceptance of sacraments outside the church (such as with the reception of my entire diocese by the Ecumenical Patriarchate), poses a challenge to the strict interpretations of the churches boundaries.

One last related note is that while the RC looks in disbelief at the addition of Greek forms into the Latin rite in the so called Western Orthodox parishes, one must remember that this betrays a different understanding of the relationship between the bishop and the liturgy. For RCs, the Pope is the arbiter of the Latin rite and all changes are properly his, with the input of course from other bishops. For Orthodox, the diocesan bishop is the arbiter of any and all rites within his diocese.

Thoughtful post IMHO, but a question or two.

If this works so well for y’all, how come so few non-Antiochians recognize WRO? How come there is tremendous controversy about WRO even among the Antiochians? And how come the WRO remains teensy-eensy-weensy? Eastern Catholicism may be small, “ethnic,” whatever, but it is still much larger and much more widely accepted within Catholicism than WRO is within Orthodoxy.

First, I never made any statement assuming that the Eastern grass is always greener. All anyone has to do is ask “who is the Orthodox bishop in New York City” to discover that Catholic hierarchical organization is a thing that a bean-counter could love. ;)

Second, I’m not so sure what you mean by “recognize WRO.” From my understanding of Catholic terminology this generally means “recognize as valid sacraments.” If this is what you mean, than I don’t know of any bishop who does not “recognize WRO” if only by the virtue that not a single bishop in the world has condemned as heretical a bishop overseeing a WR parish. If by “recognize WRO” you mean “a bishop desires to have a WR parish in his diocese,” well, that is up to the bishop. The pros/cons of a WR parish can be weighed by a bishop just as an Orthodoxy hospital might be. A diocesan bishop could reject WRO within his own diocese for really any reason, including he doesn’t like the color of the lenten stoles. To my mind, the only real debate on WRO is whether it is a good idea or not. No one of episcopal authority is casting public doubt on the validity of such rites.

Third, I don’t see how your observations about Western Rite Orthodoxy (WRO) disprove my point (in fact, they prove it). My point is that the diocesan bishop is responsible for the parishes in his diocese. That is *exactly* the case of WRO. In fact, the most rabid anti-WRO person I know, a man who has earned his opinions, put it this way: “If it were up to me, there would be no WR; however, their bishop is in communion with my bishop, so I will trust my bishop.” WRO is so small specifically because it is a diocesan phenomenon and there is no Patriarch/Metropolitan pushing for its adoption (the Antiochian WR Vicariate is really not much more than a printing house).

The bottom line is that RCs do Eastern rites “Catholic style” (separate hierarchy for the rite with Latin “influences”) and Orthodox do Western rites “Orthodox style” (local/regional hierarchy regardless of rite with Greek “influences”).

Another thing to note here is that “the bishop runs his diocese” point that I have hammered on is only part of the picture. In every case that I know the rite itself was approved by either the Metropolitan, Patriarch and/or the Metropolitan/Patriarchal synods but the application of that rite is a diocesan decision. So while the diocesan bishops are the liturgical arbiters of the diocese, this is done within the framework of a larger consensus.

The perspective that MUST be kept in all of this is that until the late middle ages (and perhaps as late as the 16th centuries, depending on how one looks at things) it was not unheard of for a bishop to write his own rite or tweak an existing one for local use. In fact, the strict standardization of rites is only really possible with the creation of the printing press (and far more today with the Internet). To this day, the Church of Ethiopia alone has 14 official anaphoras (canons) and literally *dozens* of unofficial ones (I think the count is in the 70’s). The West wasn’t really much different until Trent (and, again, the printing press).

In short, the Orthodox maintain the traditional practise that the bishop is the primary arbiter of all Eucharistic celebrations within his diocese with the consensus of their ruling synod. This is why Orthodox have a hard time understanding how the Pope can make a ruling about which use of a rite a priest under another bishop can celebrate without permission from his bishop. For Orthodox, NO priest can celebrate ANY rite (or use of that rite) without episcopal blessing of the bishop under whose omophorion he resides. We simply have no such corollary. That being said, such a structure would not prevent union so long as that structure was a local (ie Roman) phenomenon.

Dr. Tighe, if you are around (or anyone else who knows the answer to this question), were the pre-schism Latin rite communities in Constantinople and Athos under a Roman bishop? How about the Greek rite communities in Italy? Obviously the crusades were much more contentious, but I think I remember reading somewhere that the Latin parishes in Constantinople were under the Patriarch and the Greek communities in Italy (Rome especially, not the Greek colonies under the Patriarch) were under the Pope. Is that correct?

You raise some interesting issues, most of which I will try to get to later. With respect to episcopal autonomy in liturgical and disciplinary matters in the Latin rite, the bishops of the West have historically chosen to vest the bishop of Rome with final authority on these issues. Thus, any bishop acting independently in such matters is in violation of the canons. Other Patriarchates have chosen to structure matters differently. The point here is that Rome didn’t tyrannically and unilaterally appropriate this authority to itself.

This does raise the issue of the Eastern Catholic rites. It is a common myth held by Orthodox that the Latinization of these rites (much overstated as it is) is somehow Rome’s doing. It isn’t. It is in fact the product of precisely the local episcopal discretion you are calling for. Rome’s interventions have largely gone in the other direction, trying to keep the rites liturgically distinct and the Eastern ones as close to their non-Catholic Eastern counterparts as reasonably possible. The much abused example of the imposition of celibacy on Eastern clergy in the Americas is a non sequitur. This was simply a quid pro quo for the establishment of separate Eastern-rite episcopal structures in majority Latin territory. According to your ecclesiology, all Eastern rite Catholics in the Americas should be under the discretionary authority of Latin bishops who would have done far worse to them.

Specifically to your question to Dr. Tighe, I suspect I am in as good a position to answer as he is:

“Dr. Tighe, if you are around (or anyone else who knows the answer to this question), were the pre-schism Latin rite communities in Constantinople and Athos under a Roman bishop? How about the Greek rite communities in Italy? Obviously the crusades were much more contentious, but I think I remember reading somewhere that the Latin parishes in Constantinople were under the Patriarch and the Greek communities in Italy (Rome especially, not the Greek colonies under the Patriarch) were under the Pope. Is that correct?”

Yes, at least until the schism the Latin communities in Constantinople were under the Patriarch’s nominal jurisdiction. In practice, however, they were normally under imperial protection (as they provided valuable financial and naval services to the Emperor) and left to run their own affairs. The Patriarch usually limited himself to ordaining those submitted to him for such and to the consecration of new churches. Michael Caerularius’ efforts to impose the use of leavened bread led to defiance, serious riots, and the desecration of the Latin eucharist, and ended very badly in terms of East-West relations. So far as I know, there was only ever one Western monastery on Mount Athos, and I don’t know whose jurisdiction it fell under.

The Greek communities in Italy and Sicily were normally under the leadership of local Byzantine monasteries, all of which were under special Roman jurisdiction to protect them from the local Latin ordinaries. The Italo-Albanians (their modern descendents) didn’t get their own episcopate until the 20th century.

“With respect to episcopal autonomy in liturgical and disciplinary matters in the Latin rite, the bishops of the West have historically chosen to vest the bishop of Rome with final authority on these issues. Thus, any bishop acting independently in such matters is in violation of the canons.”

I see no conflict here with Orthodoxy ecclesiology as this is a matter of internal Roman oeconomia. I never made any assumption that this was “tyrannically and unilaterally” appropriated by Rome. In fact, I assumed just the opposite.

“It is a common myth held by Orthodox that the Latinization of these rites (much overstated as it is) is somehow Rome’s doing.”

I also never assumed this myth to be true as evidenced in my statement “separate bishops for the rite.” Rome has assumed that the usage of an Eastern rite it is not up to the local Latin rite bishop. My understanding of the Latinization of these rites is that it probably just happened over time and perhaps by ignorance (Hanlon’s razor).

I actually think that a strong statement from the Pope protecting the historical form of the Eastern rites among Eastern Catholic would be appreciated by most Orthodox. In the mean time, most of us, in my experience, just make jokes about it. For instance we, for a short season, had an Eastern Catholic worship with us at my parish (while he attended a local college). We once spent and hour or so looking through his prayer book looking for “odities” (such as the vows right in the middle of the wedding ceremony). It was actually quite fun, and none of us disparaged anyone or suggested that anyone convert or any of that nonsense.

I think the confusion has come in due to the clear history of Rome suppressing non-Roman rites inside its jurisdiction (whether tyrannically, or through the “encouragement” of cardinals and kings). Imagine my sadness last month when I was in Milan and showed up for mass (with my priest’s blessing!) at the only parish in the world to serve the traditional Ambrosian rite to find that the church had been closed. I admit that I know nothing of the circumstances, but something needs to be done to maintain these ancient and highly distinguished rites (it should be the cathedral rite of Milan!). This is precisely where the Orthodox paradoxical understanding that while the bishop has authority over the rite, the rite also has authority over the bishop comes in handy. What authority do we have to destroy the prayers that overcame Arianism in Lombardy?

“According to your ecclesiology, all Eastern rite Catholics in the Americas should be under the discretionary authority of Latin bishops who would have done far worse to them.”

Agreed, that is precisely what happened to St Alexis of Wilkes-Barre. But keep in mind that I’m trying to describe how things currently are, not how they must be. Frankly, I think we Orthodox are operating in an ecclesiology that is mostly outmoded by modern mass-transit and mass-communication. Rome had to answer these kinds of questions much earlier in history (and had many of the same difficulties that we have) due to its relation to the rapid global expansion of the Western countries into North/South America, Africa and Asia. Actually, my greatest hope for a major step towards reunion is that our upcoming patriarchal synod (or perhaps ecumenical council?) will be informed by Rome’s ability to overcome some of these issues. I pray that God will provide Roman observers to the council who will be knowledgeable on this history and sensitive to Orthodox concerns.

However, we should also realize that many of Rome’s methods are outdated as well. Having conflicting bishops in South America in the 1700s is very different from that same conflict happening today. Rome’s push toward centralization was probably a necessary “evil” (don’t take me too literally here) when it was impossible to pick up your iphone and video chat with the bishop of Buenos Aires in seconds. The ability of the church to be conciliar on a large scale has only improved with mass communication. Thus, our canon requiring bi-annual synodal conferences is probably vastly out of date. Perhaps we should consider bi-annual in person conferences with monthly videophone conferences? And with larger observer audiences? It should also be possible to have a standing invitation to such conferences to bishops of the other Church as observers…

I still contend though that the greatest obstacle to union is the anathema levied against those who disagree with the doctrinal definitions of Vatican I. No matter how much we begin to draw closer to the Roman Church on issues of the universal level of Christianity, I do not believe our tradition permits us to assign to Rome the prerogative of requiring universal* subscription to a doctrinal definition without a council (“ex sese et non ex consensu ecclesiae”).

* – Perhaps it could be argued that, as a matter of economy within the Roman Patriarchal see, the bishops under Roman jurisdiction have given their Patriarch such a prerogative. I see no conflict with Orthodox ecclesiology in this regard. However, I think it impossible to argue that such a prerogative on the universal level was:
1. Part of the Petrine grant
2. Ever agreed upon by anyone outside the Roman see (even St Maximus, perhaps the greatest Eastern proponent of the Roman see and supreme teacher of theology, ruptured communion with a heretical Rome)
3. Actually exercised in any significant way before the filioque controversy (keep in mind that definitions such as Pope St Leo’s tome were reviewed by the councils to determine their orthodoxy).

For Orthodox, the Vincentian Canon and the definition of “catholic” by St Irenaeus, provides the key justification here. Whatever one’s belief of the Petrine grant may be (and I personally have a pretty high view of it; I think its hard not to given Bauer’s contribution to the study of early Christianity), the specific prerogative outlined above does not appear until quite late and thus fails to meet the criteria for a “catholic” dogma.

As a complete aside, there is an old, abandoned convent turned business dedicated to Pope St Leo that is empty and for sale in the adjacent town. I pray every time I pass it that a Catholic or Orthodox church would be established in such a beautiful building. May the prayers of Pope St Leo make such things possible!

As you seem too impatient to wait for my fuller treatment of your earlier post, I’ll respond to this latest one first.

“I actually think that a strong statement from the Pope protecting the historical form of the Eastern rites among Eastern Catholic would be appreciated by most Orthodox.”

You may be comforted to learn that many Popes have made just such statements over the centuries. In fact, I can’t think of a Pope in recent memory who hasn’t made such a statement. They are so routine as to be commonplace. It would take a while for me to hunt them all down but, if it is really important to you, I will to rustle up a few for you at some point.

“I think the confusion has come in due to the clear history of Rome suppressing non-Roman rites inside its jurisdiction (whether tyrannically, or through the “encouragement” of cardinals and kings). Imagine my sadness last month when I was in Milan and showed up for mass (with my priest’s blessing!) at the only parish in the world to serve the traditional Ambrosian rite to find that the church had been closed. I admit that I know nothing of the circumstances, but something needs to be done to maintain these ancient and highly distinguished rites (it should be the cathedral rite of Milan!). This is precisely where the Orthodox paradoxical understanding that while the bishop has authority over the rite, the rite also has authority over the bishop comes in handy. What authority do we have to destroy the prayers that overcame Arianism in Lombardy?”

(Baffled) I am at a complete loss as to where you are getting this from. The Ambrosian rite is normative for almost all the diocese of Milan, plus bits of several others. That’s almost 5 million Latin Catholics. How many Orthodox Churches have even half that many baptized members? The rite is now mainly in Italian, perhaps you were looking for some church that normally performed it in Latin. I can only speculate. But rest assured, the rite of Paul VI’s home diocese is still alive and kicking.

Here is a list of all the Western rites that I know of in at least weekly parochial use:

Roman
Ambrosian
Zairian
Anglican
Carthusian
Mozarabic

Can Orthodoxy claim as many?

There is also much mythification regarding the “suppression” of local Western rites at Trent and later. Only those which could not claim 200+ years of continuous use (i.e the novel ones)were formally suppressed. Many of these were little different from the Roman, were poorly or incompletely documented, or were composed in barbarically poor Latin. Others not suppressed, disappeared during the Reformation thanks to the tender anti-Catholic efforts of Erastian Protestant state Churches (Sarum rite, come on down!)

Most of those that were allowed to continue just disappeared on their own because it was too much local bother and expense to sustain them. Sad perhaps, but they still exist in manuscript form, and if anyone wants to revive them and is willing to put the resources into making them viable, he can always apply to Rome for an indult. If the enterprise is credible and has the support of the local bishop, I don’t see Rome saying no.

“No matter how much we begin to draw closer to the Roman Church on issues of the universal level of Christianity, I do not believe our tradition permits us to assign to Rome the prerogative of requiring universal* subscription to a doctrinal definition without a council (“ex sese et non ex consensu ecclesiae”).”

You are misunderstanding the sense of “ex sese et non ex consensu ecclesiae.” It doesn’t mean (to Catholics at least) what many Orthodox read it as meaning (neither does the filioque, but that’s another story). Your specific interpretation (which I have never encountered before), seems to imply that the Church had no organ through which to teach infallibly between circa 100 and 325, had one only periodically and fitfully between 325 and 787, and hasn’t had one since. At least I infer this assuming that you mean ecumenical councils.

“Ex esse et non ex consensu ecclesia” does not exclude the Pope from the moral obligation of consulting as widely as possible among his fellow bishops before speaking on their behalf. Nor does it authorize him to contradict a recognized truth, invent a “new” truth, or depart from Tradition in any way.

When challenged on the phrase, this was the gloss put on it by the ultramontane majority at Vatican I, and which led virtually all the hesitating Council fathers to sign. You can find it in the council minutes. Basically, as protos, the bishop of Rome can speak for (not “instead of” or “against”) his brother bishops on matters of faith and morals.

“* – Perhaps it could be argued that, as a matter of economy within the Roman Patriarchal see, the bishops under Roman jurisdiction have given their Patriarch such a prerogative. I see no conflict with Orthodox ecclesiology in this regard. ”

It’s not a humanly instituted “prerogative.” If it were, it would be one the Pope could delegate. Catholic doctrine on this point is clear: he can’t. Therefore it is not one all the bishops, let alone merely the Latin ones, could “give.”

“However, I think it impossible to argue that such a prerogative on the universal level was:
1. Part of the Petrine grant
2. Ever agreed upon by anyone outside the Roman see (even St Maximus, perhaps the greatest Eastern proponent of the Roman see and supreme teacher of theology, ruptured communion with a heretical Rome)”

“3. Actually exercised in any significant way before the filioque controversy (keep in mind that definitions such as Pope St Leo’s tome were reviewed by the councils to determine their orthodoxy).”

Actually, they weren’t “reviewed”; they were acclaimed as soon as they had been read out.

I think part of the problem here is that you assume that Catholicism teaches that a Pope’s every utterance is infallible, and that it was historically always received as such. The fact of the matter is that on each and every point a Roman pontiff has ever expressed a doctrinal definition over the centuries explicitly intended as binding on the whole Church, he ended up arguably articulating the position actually now held by the Orthodox Church (albeit not necessarily in words or in arguments congenial to Orthodoxy; but doctrinal definitions are axioms, and the arguments used to defend them are not necessarily in and of themselves infallible), and yet Papal teachings were invariably contested at the time, often vigorously.

“For Orthodox, the Vincentian Canon and the definition of “catholic” by St Irenaeus, provides the key justification here. Whatever one’s belief of the Petrine grant may be (and I personally have a pretty high view of it; I think its hard not to given Bauer’s contribution to the study of early Christianity), the specific prerogative outlined above does not appear until quite late and thus fails to meet the criteria for a “catholic” dogma.”

It seems to me that you are turning the Vincentian canon on its head. Unless I am mistaken (which is always possible; not being Hans Küng, I am not infallible) St. Vincent never wrote that revealed truth was LIMITED to what all the bishops had taught everywhere, all the time. He merely meant that what was contrary to what was taught by all the bishops everywhere and all the time was demonstrably not part of revealed truth. As for St Irenaeus, he is the earliest documented patristic source for the bishop of Rome’s unique dogmatic teaching authority: “It is necessary that every church, that is, the faithful who are everywhere, should agree with this church; in which that tradition which is from the apostles has been preserved by those who are everywhere.” So I find it rather ironic that you would cite him as a source against Papal infallibility. I know Orthodox try to quibble and claim that this is not what he must have written in the original Greek, but…

I do, however, think I understand far more about Vatican I than you give me credit for.

1. I know the pope has made such statements in regards to *other* eastern liturgies (in particular, the east syrian rite which has been heavily latinized in places). I have not yet read a statement about the Byzantine rite in particular and would be glad if you could provide one.

2. “(Baffled)” – I said: traditional Ambrosian rite. The rite that I observed in Milan was heavily NOized and I was hoping to see something a bit more, well, traditional. Its a bit hard for me to understand how a Mass served in italian, in a church with modern abstract art of the crucifixion and an altar with nondescript humans etched in the side, with the priest facing the people and the use of eucharistic ministers is considered Ambrosian just because it is missing the Angus Dei and has a few antiphons. But that is just the antiquarian in me speaking, feel free to ignore him. (BTW, I share these same critiques of my own Church, so again, feel free to disregard)

3. “Can Orthodoxy claim as many?” – If you include the Orientals, yes and more (they have lots). Excluding the Orientals, we have 3 out of 3 of our original rites:
* Modern Byzantine (Ss Chrysostom&Basil) – a synthesis of ancient byzantine and west-syrian rites
* West Syrian (St James) – Still celebrated by many orthodox only on St James’ day
* Alexandrian – in Egypt. There is also one Alexandrian monastery in the USA, but I can’t confirm that they use this rite.

I am also happy to stipulate the 200 year rule of Trent and the tragedy of the Sarum rite. However, I’m pretty sure that most liturgical scholars believe that there was a fair bit of “encouragement” behind the scenes for the normalization of the other western rites against Roman forms. To speak again of the Ambriosian rite, to my understanding it was attacked at least twice by popes directly (Nicholas II and Gregory VII).

4. ‘You are misunderstanding the sense of “ex sese et non ex consensu ecclesiae.”’ I’m pretty sure I’m not. I believe your understanding of *my* comprehension of “ex sese” to be a caricature at best. I never said against, but without. This is precisely the sense in which it is meant: the pope does not require a council to define a doctrine which the universal church must adhere to. Catholics believe that the pope has this prerogative by divine right. Orthodox believe that the pope does not have this prerogative. This is precisely the main theological issue of the schism. That the divine nature of this prerogative is not universally accepted in the church, the burden of proof is, I believe, on the Roman church to prove this. This is why I mentioned Vincent and Irenaeus (who is my main area of study). I’m not turning them on their heads. I’m merely pointing out that since the locus and nature of this prerogative was never universally accepted, it must be proven. The problem with Irenaeus’ statement as you have parsed it is that the accepted reading among scholars is this: that Rome’s tradition is the universal tradition and that everyone must agree with Rome, not because it is Rome, but because the same tradition is maintained by the apostles everywhere. Irenaeus is arguing *for* Rome’s current position on gnosticism using what would later become Vincent’s canon, not that in every case Rome is correct ex sese. You have read the argument backwards. Even Irenaeus’ mention of Peter and Paul is in the context of other churches *also* having apostles that taught the same thing. No one disagrees that Rome is the pre-eminent church, but an argument from ex sese out of Irenaeus, and that is precisely what is at stake here, is not provable.

Further, I have contention with the interpretation that says he doesn’t speak against his brother bishops but that he ironically uses this authority to resolve intractable issues. If the issue is intractable, than by speaking on the issue he is in fact speaking against bishops. Further, if he speaks non ex consensu ecclesia, there are only three options:
1. There is consensus and he speaks it, in which case how can we know his definition was ex sese and not ex consensu?
2. There is consensus and he speaks against it, which is not possible according to your interpretation
3. There is no consensus and he speaks against some bishops

Given our recent talk about the TLM, when the pope declared that any priest in any diocese may serve TLM without the blessing of his bishop, was he not in fact speaking against some bishops?

Returning to a more balanced perspective, in my attempt to be irenic, it seems to me that the perspective on the prerogative in question is really the result of the narrative of the schism itself. For instance (and keep in mind this is intentional caricature):
A. The filioque is true and proper for the creed and given the fact that this was added to an ecumenical creed without council, therefore the pope must have the prerogative to do so.
B. The filioque is heresy and the Church would never agree to it ecumenically even though the pope brazenly attempts to add it to the creed, therefore the pope is a heretic and assumes prerogatives which properly belong to the consensus.

My point here is that both our perceptions of the Roman primacy are self-reinforcing of our narrative of the schism.

Ok, I’m really running out of time, but I’ll respond to the dispute about the Tome of Leo, since it is the one I know off the top of my head. There were *some* shouts of acclaim. There were *also* shouts of disagreement at three separate passages. Although most wished to approve it, due to the particularly contentious nature of the issue and to some more-than-trivial question about the orthodoxy of certain portions of the tome, it was assigned to a committee for review against Cyril’s two letters to Nestorius lead by Anatolius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. After a five day review, each member of the committee separately gave their opinion that Leo’s Tome was consistent with Cyril’s letters and that on this basis it should be accepted as the authoritative statement of the council.

It is precisely this fact, that Leo’s tome is authoritative because it agrees with Cyril’s letters, that is argued by Catholics supporting the council against the Monophysites who claim that the council was settled under the Nestorian influence of Theodoret and his companions. While I will in no way cast any doubt that Leo’s tome is authoritative (it is), it is so because it agrees with Cyril and because Cyril agrees with the apostles, not because it is ex cathedra.

For more details, see Mansi – Acta conciliorum oecumenicum.

One should also note that there is significant critical scholarship on this council as well. Some have suggested that the acclaim over the tome is a later editorial gloss. Others have suggested that the acclaim was pre-meditated by Theodoret and his companions looking to swing the council back to a semi-Nestorian position, or at least to try and restore his good grace with the council by backing the winning horse. I think both of these positions highly speculative (though the later one has some evidence), but at least worth mentioning.

I’ll try to dig out some information on the rest of your response a bit later, but I have to go. :)

Oh, and Diane, drink a glass of wine for me! ;) Sorry that I read into what you were saying.

“That the divine nature of this prerogative is not universally accepted in the church, the burden of proof is, I believe, on the Roman church to prove this.”

“Prerogative” is your word not mine. I assume you like it because it sounds more arbitrary than “authority.” As we are dealing with Catholic claims, it might be best to stick to Catholic terminology.

Be that as it may, one cannot “prove” articles of faith. It suffices in this case to establish that Roman pontiffs claimed this authority consistently during the pre-schism period; that the claim was supported (at least on a prima facie basis) by Fathers of otherwise unquestionable orthodoxy; that it was never contested by any Fathers of unquestionable orthodoxy; and that the Church in practice conformed itself to the claim. All four can be demonstrated. Whether this constitutes “proof” is an altogether different matter.

The reason the historical record shows some ambiguity (and it does) is that it was not always clear when the bishop of Rome was exercising this particular charism. Popes got involved in numerous doctrinal controversies in which they expressed opinions without engaging this charism. But when they explicitly and solemnly did engage it citing their Petrine authority (and Leo’s tome is a good example) they expected their word to be final and said so, and ultimately in such cases (at least amongst the orthodox) it so proved to be.

“2. There is consensus and he speaks against it, which is not possible according to your interpretation”

You are correct on this point, it isn’t possible by definition. A consensus the protos does not participate in is no consensus. The Apostolic Canons state as much.

If you mean something like “he speaks against the considered (as opposed to poorly thought through) views held by an overwhelming majority of the bishops,” this would be a problem, but not that envisaged in the non ex consensu formula. It would be a problem in that it would demonstrate that the doctrine of papal infallibility is false, as it is implicit in the doctrine that the Holy Spirit would prevent this from happening. And in fact, it never has in the almost 2,000 years of the Church’s existence. What non ex consensu means is that you don’t have to wait until each bishop has spoken to know that the bishop of Rome is speaking the mind of the Church when he says he is.

“3. There is no consensus and he speaks against some bishops”

“Against some bishops” is not the same as “against the bishops.” Obviously, if the Pope needs to intervene authoritatively in this way, the doctrine he is defending must be under some sort of assault from either outside or inside the Church. In the latter case, the Pope will most likely find himself against some bishops. This is a given. But “some bishops” does not constitute the episcopate as a whole.

“Given our recent talk about the TLM, when the pope declared that any priest in any diocese may serve TLM without the blessing of his bishop, was he not in fact speaking against some bishops?”

Erm, how is this even relevant to this discussion? We are talking about the Pope’s doctrinal authority, not his disciplinary jurisdiction over the Latin rite.

With regard to the Tome of Leo, there are a few problems with your narrative. Principally you are misinterpreting the process involved in the tome’s reception. We need to keep in mind the broader context behind the issue Chalcedon was intended to address.

The point was not principally whether the miaphysites were right or wrong in their theology, but whether diaphysite theology was necessarily Nestorian as the miaphysites claimed, and purported to have established at Ephesus.

Leo’s tome did not address this issue directly, and had been written and circulated in the East long before Chalcedon met. He was instead concerned that the council not repudiate diaphysite theology in its orthodox form. He precluded this possibility by instructing his legates that they should insist on the tome’s reception.

The point of the later commission you refer to was not to test the orthodoxy of Leo’s tome (which all but the miaphysites considered a given), but to demonstrate to the miaphysites (unsuccessfully as it happens) that it conformed to Cyril’s writings.

This was important not because the commissioners felt that Cyril was THE test of orthodoxy, but because the miaphysites had made him so for their purposes, and that peace was not going to be achieved unless the conformity of the two (diaphysism and Cyril) could be demonstrated to them to their satisfaction (which it wasn’t, which is largely why we are in schism with the Oriental Orthodox).

The approval of Leo’s tome was never in any doubt. If the council had refused to receive it, the legates would have left (as they did at Ephesus), Leo would have condemned the exercise as yet another latrocinium (as he did with respect to Ephesus), and everyone involved would have ended up with egg on their face. This is, after all, largely what had happened at Ephesus when Dioscurus had prevented the tome from even being read.

You are thus mistaking carefully choreographed theatrics, stage-managed for the benefit of an ultimately unimpressed miaphysite audience, as some form of orthodox challenge to Leo’s claim to be able to speak authoritatively as protos.

As we seem to be trading sources, let me commend the excellent treatment of the period by secular historian Patrick T. R. Gray in “The Legacy of Chalcedon: Christological Problems and Their Significance” published in the Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, ed. Michael Maas.

Here is a passage from Orientalis Ecclesiae, Pius XII, 1944. It’s not quite what you are looking for, but it’s an example of what I was talking about:

27. We would have this to be known and appreciated by all, both by those who were born within the bosom of the Catholic Church, and by those who are wafted towards her, as it were, on the wings of yearning and desire. The latter especially should have full assurance that they will never be forced to abandon their legitimate rites or to exchange their own venerable and traditional customs for Latin rites and customs. All these are to be held in equal esteem and equal honor, for they adorn the common Mother Church with a royal garment of many colors. Indeed this variety of rites and customs, preserving inviolate what is most ancient and most valuable in each, presents no obstacle to a true and genuine unity. It is especially in these times of ours, when the strife and discord of war have estranged men’s hearts from one another nearly all the world over, that all must be impelled by the stimulus of Christian charity to promote union in Christ and through Christ by every means in their power.

There is, of course, the bit from Vatican II (Orientalium Ecclesiarum) that should not be neglected:

6. All members of the Eastern Rite should know and be convinced that they can and should always preserve their legitimate liturgical rite and their established way of life, and that these may not be altered except to obtain for themselves an organic improvement. All these, then, must be observed by the members of the Eastern rites themselves. Besides, they should attain to an ever greater knowledge and a more exact use of them, and, if in their regard they have fallen short owing to contingencies of times and persons, they should take steps to return to their ancestral traditions.

One further comment brought about by my re-reading of Lumen Gentium today. Paragraph 27 says: “In virtue of this power, bishops have the sacred right and the duty before the Lord to make laws for their subjects, to pass judgment on them and to moderate everything pertaining to *the ordering of worship* and the apostolate.” (emphasis mine)

This is precisely the principle that Orthodox support and see as conflicting with a universal decree by Rome that a priest may celebrate any use of a rite without permission from his bishop. Again, this stems from the fact that we share the rite in common and have no “ritual authority” apart from the local bishop and his agreements with his brother bishops in synod. In general (and there are always exceptions, history is messy), it is common practice for a metropolitan or patriarch to universally add a petition without the consent of the local bishop, but it is not appropriate for him, without the consent of the synod, to dictate the translation used (for instance). I realize that this sounds like a mess to most Catholics, but Orthodox view it as respecting the dignity of the apostolic office of each bishop.

As Orthodox and/or Roman Catholics we both have misconceptions about the Latinizations in the Byzantine Rite. I have been doing some reading of articles on this subject by Archpriest David Petras SEOD of Byzantine Catholic Seminary, and he offers an insiders view I find quite insightful. I don’t have the time to lay out his main points now, but, I will get to it soon.

This is precisely the principle that Orthodox support and see as conflicting with a universal decree by Rome that a priest may celebrate any use of a rite without permission from his bishop.

Sometimes the pope must intervene in order to protect the laity from oppressive bishops. I think the situation you cite falls under this rubric.

JPII had issued his Indult allowing much wider access to the TLM. But many bishops balked and kept the laity from enjoying this access. So, the laity complained, and Rome (Pope Benedict) responded. Sobornost in action. :)

Well, Orthodox have a process for this too. Its just different than the Catholic one. I think the major difference in this case is that there is a stream of Hegelianism that has been ‘caught’ by a variety (large number?) of Catholic bishops who view themselves as following the will of God when they synthesize the historic praxis with ‘contemporary life’; or worse, they view themselves as the thesis and antithesis and magisterium as the synthesis. The end result is something akin to Chesterton’s image of the chariot with unwieldy race horses (I know his image is positive and I’m using as negative; hopefully he’ll forgive me). Further complicating this problem is that it has been allowed to infect some of the cardinals as well. Perhaps the issue with the TLM has been resolved, but at what cost? Priests are now permitted to be in open defiance of their bishops?

Please understand what I’m saying and the heart with which I say it. I’m not saying this method doesn’t work for Catholics, only that it wouldn’t work for us. The scandal resulting from such a declaration would be bigger than the scandal over the liturgy itself. You’ll also need to trust me that this would not be motivated by a rebellion against authority (since the concern here is that diocesan priests maintain obedience to their diocesan bishop).

Frankly diane, if the goal is to understand one another better (and that is my goal here), I don’t think that short triumphalist comments are really helpful. What if you instead asked “How would Orthodox deal with such a situation?” This would promote learning rather than just assuming that we have no way of dealing with “intractable disputes” or with oppressive hierarchy since we have no pope.

It amazes me how many grand overarching “isms” y’all attribute to us Catholics. It’s downright Toynbee-esque — except that Toynbee, as an erudite historian, actually knew what he was talking about. ;-)

(BTW, I’ve noticed that Calvinists have that same tendency to make sweeping grandiose statements about the allleged “isms” which supposedly compromise Catholicism — post-modernism, evidentialism [whatever that is], and so on. One can always spot the ex-Calvinist Orthodox, because they still use the same Calvie playbook.)

Good grief, Nathaniel, how is it “triumphalist” to explain why the pope intervened in the Latin Mass case? Frankly, I am scratching my head here. Did I say, “The pope does X for reason Y, and that’s better than the way the Orthodox do it”? I neither said this nor even remotely implied it. You had lobbed a charge (which is a strange way of seeking ecumenical understanding), and I simply sought to clarify the Catholic praxis for you — NOT to claim it was better (I never said any such thing) but, rather, to explain why we Catholic laypeople might appreciate the pope’s intervention in certain situations. Those situations pertain to Latin Catholicism, which has been through a turbulent period in recent decades. I am not presuming to prescribe the same sort of thing for the East. I was simply explaining how and why the pope’s intervention WRT the Extraordinary Form of the Mass was justified and understandable in the Latin Catholic context. Period.

Michael, two short things since I haven’t had time to come back to this post:

“Prerogative” is not my word. It is the word used by the ancient canons to refer to the specific privileges that are properly speaking part of every episcopal charism and yet are nevertheless restricted to a particular ranking of bishop (ie Metropolitan). If universal jurisdiction is properly attributable to every bishop, but is restricted to the purview of the pope than it is, according to the terminology of the venerable canons, a “prerogative proper to his office.” I have chosen to use this terminology not because I dislike authority, but because “authority” is too vague and often interpreted, due to its vagary, as of an imperial type (which is precisely NOT the teaching of the ancient canons and Fathers and indeed the papacy itself). It is better to use a word which has significant canonical precedent and which is far more precise in its meaning. This is increasingly apropos since, if one considers that Orthodox are not to be held accountable to 2nd millennium developments of the papacy, this is the precise theological and canonical terminology that would be used in a council to resolve a dispute between bishops.

Second, I think you have missed (and in fact proved) my point in your response to my “narrative” of Chalcedon. Both Orthodoxy and Catholicism have narratives of history which are so large, so complete, that one can live entirely within the one while ignoring the other. Further, that these narratives were born in the 700-800 years of gradual schism and are institutionally self-justifying. Unlike other schisms which occurred over issues of incredibly precise matters (one iota perhaps?), the breadth of items contended and the length of the contention make it impossible for any one person to successfully learn every facet of the dispute. The end result are two mutually exclusive, perhaps incommensurable, paradigms. As long as we are unable to come up with a common world-view that we can champion as God’s will, any union will be difficult if not impossible to achieve.

The point is, we need to come up with a common narrative, not bicker over the fine points each other’s narrative. The greatest difficulty seems to me not on the Orthodox side where, however great the narrative is ingrained, it is not canonized. The locus of the difficulty appears to me to be that the Catholic church has canonized her narrative at multiple points (perhaps the most prominent being VatI’s definition of papal infallibility), but most especially the anathemas connected with such definitions. The end result is that I do not see how the Catholic church can compromise her narrative in the slightest. This means that the only possibility for union is the capitulation of Orthodoxy to Catholic dogmas.

I’m thus not attempting to attack infallibility per se, but to point out the difficulty that arises from its attached anathemas for Orthodox Christians who desire to form a common narrative with Rome (of which I am one).

You might have noticed that I haven’t posted much in a while. It isn’t because I don’t have anything to say, but because I am being submerged in posts I feel I must respond to. Many of these are yours, so please forgive me if I leave something unaddressed, particularly with respect to your original comment on this thread.

You make four discrete points in your latest post that I would like to take up briefly.

1. I don’t object to the word “prerogative” in some contexts. The Pope’s universal sacramental jurisdiction, for example, is clearly a prerogative. Acting as protos would also strike me as a papal prerogative. These are functions that involve considerable amount of discretion. Teaching infallibly, on the other hand, and at least in principle as Catholics understand the function, involves no discretion other than the decision to teach or not teach. The Pope has no discretion in the substance of what he teaches infallibly. He is bound by Tradition and can teach (infallibly) only what is in the Tradition. Still, if we are only arguing over terminology…

2. There are similar problems with “if one considers that Orthodox are not to be held accountable to 2nd millennium developments of the papacy.” “Developments” can be understood in various ways, and the papacy as we have already noted is a multifaceted institution. So your assertion might or might not be true from a Catholic perspective depending on what “developments” you mean in reference to what aspect of the “papacy.”

3. I didn’t bring up some “Catholic narrative” on Chalcedon, and I certainly didn’t do so with the aim of proving papal infallibility. I don’t happen to believe that Chalcedon offers conclusive evidence on this issue one way or the other. You are the one who argued that the treatment of Leo’s tome provided evidence against papal infallibility. The historical explanation I offered you doesn’t establish the contrary: indeed it demonstrates clearly that Cyril’s miaphysite “disciples,” at any rate, were prepared to reject any such authority if it ran counter to their received interpretation of Cyril. At best, Chalcedon demonstrates that papal infallibility was not necessarily inconsistent with the beliefs of the orthodox party.

4. You have mentioned this business of anathemas before with regards to Pastor Aeternus. I don’t see what the problem is. The anathema only applies if you explicitly seek to contradict the definition. Even Catholics recognize that the definition is incomplete and could use further qualification. If you are going to insist that there are absolutely no conceivable circumstances under which the Pope can teach infallibly, then yes, the anathema would apply. But how many Orthodox would be prepared to make such a bold assertion? It would raise a whole lot of rather uncomfortable questions such as: who can teach infallibly and, if no one can, how is anything ever infallibly taught? And if nothing is ever infallibly taught, how is anything ever known for certain, and on the basis of whose living witness is any of the faith to be accepted or believed?

Prayers for Unity

O Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour, thou didst promise to abide with us always. Thou dost call all Christians to draw near and partake of Thy Body and Blood. But our sin has divided us and we have no power to partake of Thy Holy Eucharist together. We confess this our sin and we pray Thee, forgive us and help us to serve the ways of reconciliation, according to Thy Will. Kindle our hearts with the fire of the Holy Spirit. Give us the spirit of Wisdom and faith, of daring and of patience, of humility and firmness, of love and of repentance, through the prayers of the most blessed Mother of God and of all the saints. Amen. – Fr Sergius Bulgakov

O Merciful Lord Jesus, Our Savior, hear the prayers and petitions of Your unworthy sinful servants who humbly call upon You and make us all to be one in Your one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Flood our souls with Your unquenchable light. Put an end to religious disagreements, and grant that we Your disciples and Your beloved children may all worship You with a single heart and voice. Fulfill quickly, O grace-giving Lord, your promise that there shall be one flock and one Divine Shepherd of Your Church; and may we be made worthy to glorify Your Holy Name now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen. – Bl. Leonid Fedorov